Recommended Posts
jakee 1,571
We could go back and forth forever.. If you cant see the difference between Armed Robbery (An Intentional VIOLENT Criminal Act) and DUI (Non-Violent Unintentional) Accident.. Then there is nothing either of us can say that will make any sense at all to the other.
But armed robbery is not a capitol offence, and the man in question did not kill anyone. While a DUI on its own is not classified as a lesser crime than armed robbery, our hypothetical bloke did actually kill someone.
You're the one who wants to expand the scope of the death penalty, so I'm just wondering if you can actually justify why someone who didn't kill anyone while committing a crime is more deserving of the death penalty than someone who did kill a person as a result of committing (taken in isolation) a less serious crime.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
Richards 0
But armed robbery is not a capitol offence, and the man in question did not kill anyone. While a DUI on its own is not classified as a lesser crime than armed robbery, our hypothetical bloke did actually kill someone.
You're the one who wants to expand the scope of the death penalty, so I'm just wondering if you can actually justify why someone who didn't kill anyone while committing a crime is more deserving of the death penalty than someone who did kill a person as a result of committing (taken in isolation) a less serious crime.
I think the distinction is that one made a choice to take part in a violent crime (at least one that involved the threat of violence). You know when you drive drunk you can accidentally kill someone so manslaughter makes sense. When you participate in a robberry you know that murder is a possibility and therefore holding you responsible for murder is fair.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
jakee 1,571
OK, murder is a possibility, but the guy didn't murder anyone. He was not responsible for anyone's death.
If we sentance people on what was possible, why not charge all armed robbers with murder whether someone died or not?
If we sentance people on what was possible, why not charge all armed robbers with murder whether someone died or not?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
Richards 0
That would be like charging impaired drivers with manslaughter even if no-one was hit.
I am not arguing from a strictly legal point of view. It just seems to me that if every party to a crime is held equally responsible, then violent criminals will have a much harder time getting people to be their back-up. It will also shift the burden on all participants to ensure that no-one crosses the line. Let me give you two possible scenarios.
1: Say I am a crazy violent thug who everyone expects will eventually end up in jail for murder (with some people it's not a matter of if but when) and you are just a mild thug. If I ask you to come along and back me up on a crime and you know that you wil be held fully accountable for anything I do, you might not support me (you might not even support anyone in a robbery), and you will stick to petty crime or robbery with people who you are reasonably certain are all bark. I on the other hand, will be less likely to commit the robbery because now I have no-one to back me up (most thugs like the odds stacked in their favour).
2. You and one other person come with me to rob a guy (mostly with threats, intimidation and some mild roughing up).Suddenly I go crazy and for no reason other than to show how bad I am, I punch the victim out and start kicking him visciously in the head while he is unconscious. A few more kcks from me, and both you and your buddy are going down for murder; are you going to stand there and let me finish? This policy can save some lives, and if that means that some lesser participants in crime get sentences that are disproportionate to their level of participation then so be it. It is worth it if it saves some innocent citizens.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
jakee 1,571
That is some interesting thinking.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
a civilised country should not have the death penalty. specically when it claims to be so god-damn christian. murder, in any case, is inhumane..
“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda
Zipp0 1
a civilised country should not have the death penalty.............
There's your answer.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
Richards 0
That is a fair opinion, and if you are against the death penalty not only for the driver but also the shooter then fine. Whatever punishment we do give to the shooter however, should also go to the driver.
Murdering someone while committing a robbery should carry an automatic life sentence without the possibility for parole. This should apply to the driver as well.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
That is a fair opinion, and if you are against the death penalty not only for the driver but also the shooter then fine. Whatever punishment we do give to the shooter however, should also go to the driver.
Murdering someone while committing a robbery should carry an automatic life sentence without the possibility for parole. This should apply to the driver as well.
I'm against the death penalty in all situations, and the time I've spent working for the prosecution and defense in criminal cases has only strengthened my position, for the following reasons.
1. Its irreversible. What if there's new evidence or technology that can exonerate?
2. Prosecutorial misconduct. Look at the Duke rape case...
3. Incompetent defense attorneys. They've slept through death penalty trials.
4. Eyewitness unreliability. What you think you saw isn't always what you really saw.
5. Juries aren't always right... look at how many cases are overturned on appeal.
I support killing if it's necessary for removal of the threat in self-defense situations. Not in cases of state-sanctioned homicide. Lock him up and if there is new evidence, we can always let him out.
Question: "Should the guy be in jail?"
If your answer is yes, the the question is "why?" Because he was involved in a murder? If so, then why shouldn't he be executed?
Plenty of examples of people being sent down the river exist when they didn't actually kill anyone. Charles Manson never killed anyone. People who hire hit men don't do it - the hit man does. And yet they are found liable for murder.
The trigger-man should NOT be the only person punished for this stuff. Everyone involved in it should be.
I draw the line at executing him. My belief is that execution should be for the worst of the worst. Death penalty for felony murder should be abolished. A mere accomplice like this guy - if there is a scintilla of creedence to his story - shold result in no death penalty.
But don't hit us with this "He never killed anybody" shit. That is entriely disingenuous. What' the difference between a hit man and the client? Both are cold-blooded killers.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites