Good news/Bad news

[Timber Loftis]

Well, for giggles, let me note that we've got some consensus (erm.. I think):

1. If the death penalty is to be used (IF!) then it should only be in instances of overwhelming guilt. Note that right now, the same standard is applied for determining guilt ("beyond a reasonable doubt") -- and that the case is broken into 2 parts: guilt and sentencing. Perhaps a new standard for these cases, such as "beyond any theoretical doubt and upon overwhelming direct evidence." :shrugs:

2. Life should mean life in sentencing. Don't we have "life without parole" and "life"? Isn't this problem dealt with by assigning multiple consecutive sentences or "life plus 99 years" types of sentences? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] I'm not familiar enough to know specifics of what's out there, but I know I've heard of this.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, for giggles, let me note that we've got some consensus (erm.. I think): 1. If the death penalty is to be used (IF!) then it should only be in instances of overwhelming guilt. Note that right now, the same standard is applied for determining guilt ("beyond a reasonable doubt") -- and that the case is broken into 2 parts: guilt and sentencing. Perhaps a new standard for these cases, such as "beyond any theoretical doubt and upon overwhelming direct evidence." :shrugs: 2. Life should mean life in sentencing. Don't we have "life without parole" and "life"? Isn't this problem dealt with by assigning multiple consecutive sentences or "life plus 99 years" types of sentences? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] I'm not familiar enough to know specifics of what's out there, but I know I've heard of this.

The question becomes..I think, why the hell do they call it life if it isn't life? What is with lawyers and judges who just cannot seem to say what they mean? I also believe that before the death penalty is applied it should be in cases of ovewrwhelming guilt and chronicly violent people and while some will argue that the death penalty is not a deterent...it does guarentee that one particular person will never be guilty again.

In the case where prosecution is found manufacturing evidence or falsifying evidence in death penalty cases...you have to hold them accountable and at least try them for manslaughter...if not murder.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: The question becomes..I think, why the hell do they call it life if it isn't life? What is with lawyers and judges who just cannot seem to say what they mean?

Well, look, the SUBSTANCE is there. I think there are ways to put someone away and ensure they won't get out is what I was saying. I don't care if they call it "Timeout In Perpetuity" or [img]graemlins/spam3.gif[/img] if the substance is there. While I agree it makes more common sense to say what you mean and label things thusly, I don't mind letting the minor semantic gripe slide so long as substantively things can work out.

[Moiraine]

We had the case, a few years ago, of Maurice Papon. This guy has been convicted of crimes against humanity - during WWII, he was part of the Vichy government and signed many orders that sent lots of Jews to Nazi concentration camps - in other words, to death.

This case lights up a number of questions, among which :

- The guy, having been protected for years, was 88 when he was finally judged. No way he could have done it again. Yet it was essential he was trialed and condemned.
- The core of his defense was the he had been merely following orders - Nazi orders, in that case, since the Vichy government was under orders from Germany. According to the sentence - and according to simple humanity - he should have refused to obey that kind of orders. So ... has one got the right, and the duty, to refuse to follow orders that go against his conscience ? And ... is the French state responsible for M. Papon's act ?

I mention this case because IMO it shows several crucial points concerning death penalty and major crimes :

On the basis that the death penalty should exist, where is the line to be drawn ? According to the gravity of the crime - and how do you measure that gravity ? According to the potentiality of further crimes - which in that case would apply maybe to the murderer of one but not to M. Papon's effective murder of thousands ?

And last, justice is NOT revenge. I feel better in M. Papon's case that death penalty no longer exists in France - because executing him would in a way make us no better than he is. Justice required that he be trialed and condemned - humanity required that he not be killed.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

WELCOME BACK, MOIRAINE !!!

It's very good to see you again. [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]

Hiho And welcome back Moiraine

As for The Papon guy, well whatever French law dictates should be done with him...my only disagreement in what you said is that basicly by saying that by having him put to death would make you no better than he was....that seems to say that a person who is evil and vile (if even following orders) is of equal value as a moral upstanding citizen....and what of those who unlike mr. Papon, who did refuse such orders at the cost of their own life or freedom....what kind of slap in the face is this for them? and then for the victims of mr. papon...do the survivors have any say in the matter? would it be a good idea maybe to aks them what they would want done?

Im not criticising you or your view here, just asking about these other concerns and am not trying to be...contentious [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Moiraine]

Hi Cerek, Hi MagiK ! [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]

LOL MagiK, you CAN disagree with me, I'm not made of sugar, I will not melt !

Back on topic - putting a (now) harmless 88-years old man to death would not bring justice. What both Mr. Papon's victims' families and the French people who fought in the Resistance wanted, needed, was that his crimes be acknowledged, that he got at last a fair trial and he be judged guilty. Guilty of crimes against humanity. They - we - would maybe have got a feeling of revenge if he would have been executed, but it wouldn't have been justice.

[Attalus]

There is also the matter of political pardons, as was done in Israel recently when they released several convicted terrorists who never denied their crimes, even boasted of them. How will they explain that to the families if they take up their old trade? They were sentenced to Life by Israeli courts, but they had to be rreleased because of politics. If they were dead, there would be no way to let them go.

[Timber Loftis]

Now, there's a darned interesting point, Atty. Of course, death sentences take some time to carry out, so even if they were sentenced but not yet dead the problem would be the same. Also, if they were dead, they would not be available bargaining chips. Of course, there would likely be others. *shrugs*

Originally posted by Moiraine: Hi Cerek, Hi MagiK ! [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img] LOL MagiK, you CAN disagree with me, I'm not made of sugar, I will not melt ! Back on topic - putting a (now) harmless 88-years old man to death would not bring justice. What both Mr. Papon's victims' families and the French people who fought in the Resistance wanted, needed, was that his crimes be acknowledged, that he got at last a fair trial and he be judged guilty. Guilty of crimes against humanity. They - we - would maybe have got a feeling of revenge if he would have been executed, but it wouldn't have been justice.

Glad you understood [img]smile.gif[/img]

I wasn't aware that was how the people felt, but I do believe it is up to those who have been victimized and the subject of his...crimes, if it is their will and they have received that wich they sought, I wouldn't argue with them.

If on the other hand Im asked what to do with him...well I consider him a waste of skin and a drain on society so into the recycler he goes...if I am asked that is [img]smile.gif[/img]