OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mark your calendars, folks.

15442124_10154000919456022_792243276111243421_n.png
 
Bob411 said:
Not me but, most are also for the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Funny story. I was called for jury duty when I lived in Florida. They were trying to select a jury where the death penalty could be applied. When they asked us if anyone was against the death penalty, myself and 2 others raised their hands. They then asked the 3 of us if we were against it due to religious beliefs. The other 2 said yes and I said, I am an atheist, so no. They asked why and I said it has never made sense to me to say don't murder, if you do we'll murder you. Same way I cringe when I see a parent hit their kid for hitting someone. It makes no sense. One of the others who were against the death penalty, had a friend there who was observing the jury selection. He said the defense tried to call a mistrial because of me. That kind of puzzled me, if you object due to religious beliefs its ok, but if you object because you feel it is barbaric it can be grounds for a mistrial.

something that disturbed me was during a recess in selection, some of the other jurors were kind of giddy about potentially being on a death penalty case. I can't imagine, even if i was for the death penalty, wanting to have that weight on me, deciding if someone gets to live or die. Can you imagine finding the guy guilty, him getting executed and then years later they find evidence that proves he didn't do it? Another thing that was bothersome about it, was there were 2 people being tried. They were together when the murder happened, but as the jury, you wouldn't be able to hear anything from the other case. So if the guy in the other trial said under oath, that he killed the person on his own while the guy in my case was in the bathroom taking a dump and had no idea it even happened, we wouldn't be able to hear that.
 
Kinda hard to believe that for my entire adult life, we're still having the same old abortion debate. The anti-abortion contingent has been a minority opinion going back to at least the mid-70s.
I've always found it interesting one of the few issues where the GOP lets their moral imperative flag fly.
 
Chad said:
Funny story. I was called for jury duty when I lived in Florida. They were trying to select a jury where the death penalty could be applied. When they asked us if anyone was against the death penalty, myself and 2 others raised their hands. They then asked the 3 of us if we were against it due to religious beliefs. The other 2 said yes and I said, I am an atheist, so no. They asked why and I said it has never made sense to me to say don't murder, if you do we'll murder you. Same way I cringe when I see a parent hit their kid for hitting someone. It makes no sense. One of the others who were against the death penalty, had a friend there who was observing the jury selection. He said the defense tried to call a mistrial because of me. That kind of puzzled me, if you object due to religious beliefs its ok, but if you object because you feel it is barbaric it can be grounds for a mistrial.

something that disturbed me was during a recess in selection, some of the other jurors were kind of giddy about potentially being on a death penalty case. I can't imagine, even if i was for the death penalty, wanting to have that weight on me, deciding if someone gets to live or die. Can you imagine finding the guy guilty, him getting executed and then years later they find evidence that proves he didn't do it? Another thing that was bothersome about it, was there were 2 people being tried. They were together when the murder happened, but as the jury, you wouldn't be able to hear anything from the other case. So if the guy in the other trial said under oath, that he killed the person on his own while the guy in my case was in the bathroom taking a dump and had no idea it even happened, we wouldn't be able to hear that.
Click to expand...

I am an atheist also, but my anti-death penalty logic is simple and personal. I realized that I could never pull the switch to execute someone, therefore I could not support my society doing it.
 
I don't really see point of the death penalty, ignoring one's moral pov. It's basically just punitive & doesn't have a preventative impact on crime. We spend an insane amount of money on death row inmates & don't really execute that many of them; its horribly inefficient at best.
 
i'm not a big fan of the D.P.
even tho sometimes you read or see on tv some horrendous crime committed in cold blood, my knee jerk reaction is "put them to death". but then i see all these guys who are getting out of prison because new technology and dna and such PROVES they did not do it. it's kinda hard to be a supporter then.

but then there are folks like jeffery dalmer. cops caught him with heads in the freezer and bodies in the barrels and one on the bed tied up that dalmer was going to "turn into his sex robot", by way of lobotomy. you can not get caught more red handed than that. a trial is just a formality or an opportunity for his defense to find a loop hole.

tough call.
 
Chad said:
Funny story. I was called for jury duty when I lived in Florida. They were trying to select a jury where the death penalty could be applied. When they asked us if anyone was against the death penalty, myself and 2 others raised their hands. They then asked the 3 of us if we were against it due to religious beliefs. The other 2 said yes and I said, I am an atheist, so no. They asked why and I said it has never made sense to me to say don't murder, if you do we'll murder you. Same way I cringe when I see a parent hit their kid for hitting someone. It makes no sense. One of the others who were against the death penalty, had a friend there who was observing the jury selection. He said the defense tried to call a mistrial because of me. That kind of puzzled me, if you object due to religious beliefs its ok, but if you object because you feel it is barbaric it can be grounds for a mistrial.

something that disturbed me was during a recess in selection, some of the other jurors were kind of giddy about potentially being on a death penalty case. I can't imagine, even if i was for the death penalty, wanting to have that weight on me, deciding if someone gets to live or die. Can you imagine finding the guy guilty, him getting executed and then years later they find evidence that proves he didn't do it? Another thing that was bothersome about it, was there were 2 people being tried. They were together when the murder happened, but as the jury, you wouldn't be able to hear anything from the other case. So if the guy in the other trial said under oath, that he killed the person on his own while the guy in my case was in the bathroom taking a dump and had no idea it even happened, we wouldn't be able to hear that.
Click to expand...

There's your answer right there.
 
I'm also not a supporter of the death penalty. I don't dispute that some crimes/criminals deserve to die, I just don't think the courts should have that power over us. Besides, our system sucks at it, it isn't applied fairly and when it is it takes way to long to get it over with.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
I think it's more cruel to imprison someone for life.
Click to expand...

I used to agree with that idea. Clearly I would rather die than live the rest of my life in prison with no chance to get out.

But there is a large element of society to whom the idea of prison isn't all that bad. Especially gang members. Think about it...No stress about making a living, 3 hot meals and a bed. Plenty of like minded friends around. It's pretty fucking chilling. Neither long prison sentences nor the death penalty seem to deter people from acting out on their darkest thoughts because they feel they were disrespected in some shallow way.
 
tiger roach said:
I'm also not a supporter of the death penalty. I don't dispute that some crimes/criminals deserve to die, I just don't think the courts should have that power over us. Besides, our system sucks at it, it isn't applied fairly and when it is it takes way to long to get it over with.
Click to expand...

More or less this.

Plus costs are out of control. But that goes for the whole justice system and prison industrial complex...

alex_jones_money2.jpg
 
mongooz said:
a trial is just a formality or an opportunity for his defense to find a loop hole.

tough call.
Click to expand...

That is where our legal system has failed. My dad was a high school principal before he retired. One of his student's dad was the lawyer for John Allen Mohammad, aka the DC Sniper. He got death threats for being his attorney and my dad asked him how it was to take that job. The guy told my dad, it is my job to make sure he gets a fair trial not to get him off at all costs, which is where our legal system has kind of gone. It should be that if a person gets a fair trial, the evidence will show if they are guilty or not. Defense attorneys now kind of do whatever it takes to get the person off and the prosecution does whatever it takes to convict, even if the guy didn't do it. OJ is a prime example where the defense did whatever it took and Brendan Dassey is a great example of the prosecution doing everything they could to convict.
 
Chad said:
That is where our legal system has failed. My dad was a high school principal before he retired. One of his student's dad was the lawyer for John Allen Mohammad, aka the DC Sniper. He got death threats for being his attorney and my dad asked him how it was to take that job. The guy told my dad, it is my job to make sure he gets a fair trial not to get him off at all costs, which is where our legal system has kind of gone. It should be that if a person gets a fair trial, the evidence will show if they are guilty or not. Defense attorneys now kind of do whatever it takes to get the person off and the prosecution does whatever it takes to convict, even if the guy didn't do it. OJ is a prime example where the defense did whatever it took and Brendan Dassey is a great example of the prosecution doing everything they could to convict.
Click to expand...

I went to a sportsmans dinner a few years back where a guy called Donald Finlay QC (Queen's Counsel, aka top echelon defence lawyer) was doing a talk. He used to sit on the board of Rangers football club and was caught singing sectarian songs on video so had to leave because of this (and proper old school 1890s facial hair) he's probably the best known defence lawyer in Scotland.

Most of the talk and questions revolved around his time at Rangers and the singing incident but one person asked him something like - "How can you make so much money- every time we open the papers someone you've been defending is sent away."

He shot back - "my job is to present their argument of innocence to the Crown, not to get guilty people off the hook."
 
Chad said:
That is where our legal system has failed. My dad was a high school principal before he retired. One of his student's dad was the lawyer for John Allen Mohammad, aka the DC Sniper. He got death threats for being his attorney and my dad asked him how it was to take that job. The guy told my dad, it is my job to make sure he gets a fair trial not to get him off at all costs, which is where our legal system has kind of gone. It should be that if a person gets a fair trial, the evidence will show if they are guilty or not. Defense attorneys now kind of do whatever it takes to get the person off and the prosecution does whatever it takes to convict, even if the guy didn't do it. OJ is a prime example where the defense did whatever it took and Brendan Dassey is a great example of the prosecution doing everything they could to convict.
Click to expand...

the ' just a formality' part was just for jeffery dalmer. i wasn't saying trials are just a formality. with dalmer, there was nothing to prove, it was all right there when the cops caught him with it all.
just to be clear.

i agree the trial system has been convoluted. but some of that can be laid at the feet of the judges too. it's THEIR court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top