Is there ever a time when a minor deserves the death penalty?

[jonny88]

This is something that bothers me. If the judge is going to issue the death penalty, why procrastinate and waste money taking care of them? Just put them on the schedule the following week and get it over with.

l know it makes know sense. the government has already decided your life isn't worth sheit, so why spend thousands and thousands in tax $ to keep them alive. there are people who have been sitting on death row for 20 years. they should be executed no later then a week after being found guilty.

 

[The Ween]

Blame lawyers for the long delays in death penalties. They have to have appeal after appeal after appeal.

 

[Shatterer of Dreams]

The problem is there are a number of cases that have come up where the people found guily were not actually guilty, so to kill someone right away could really get all of the people associated with the trial in a lot of trouble. Although maybe that happening a few times might get us to clean up the system as well so that may not be a bad thing.

 

[devilof76]

The possibility to putting one innocent to death is not worth the risk. Unless you can establish granite solid rules of evidence, and a conviction hinges on certainty beyond a shadow of a doubt, the death penalty should not be used. However, with the fiscal corruption amongst lawyers, and the intellectual corruption amongst law schools, don't count on that happening any time soon.

 

[jonny88]

The possibility to putting one innocent to death is not worth the risk. Unless you can establish granite solid rules of evidence, and a conviction hinges on certainty beyond a shadow of a doubt, the death penalty should not be used. However, with the fiscal corruption amongst lawyers, and the intellectual corruption amongst law schools, don't count on that happening any time soon.

l don't agree. there should be a death penalty, but there should be solid evidence that person is guilty in a death penalty case.

l watched a documentary on the PBS website a few weeks ago called "Death By Fire" its about some guy in Texas in the late 80s. his house burned down. his 2 kids died in the fire. after he had an attitude like he didn't care. he was then a suspect of arson. long story short, arson investigators said arson, and with his l don't care my kids are dead attitude, he was found guilty and put to death. years later different arson investigators looked at the evidence and said this is not arson. he was a victim of his time. investigators didn't know as much in those days as they do now, they said he was not guilty. this doesn't happen much any more.

my stance is, the world is getting way over populated. the new generations are getting more violent then ever. laws are way to easy on criminals. l say the death penalty should be in every country. if your going to kill someone, keep in mind if you get caught and found guilty you will die also, so is murder worth it. l also think more harsh laws should be brought in. like theft. people who steel cars only get probation for the most part. l know a guy who has stolen a few cars and never spend more then 1 night in jail. back in the day if you stole someones horse you were hanged on the spot. l think if you get caught stealing you should get one of your hands cut off. then as soon as that law is past 99% of theft from stores or where ever will stop. it's not a barbaric law because not many people will take the risk of stealing then, so not many people would actually get sliced. I'm just saying the world is getting more and more dangerous and we need some laws that will make someone think twice about there actions.

 

[ShadowX81]

Thats not really the way the system works. Most death penalty appeals aren't trying to prove someone's innocence (that rarely ever happens), but rather prove that the death penalty was administered in an unconstitutional way.

 

[devilof76]

The world is not overpopulated. It's underfunded.

 

[Darth Cruel]

The world is not overpopulated. It's underfunded.

This is a side note..but I actually read somewhere that it was estimated that the Earth could support 1.5 billion people without depleting the resources. The estimate for the world population currently is over 6.5 billion. Food for thought.

 

[devilof76]

I read somewhere that Malthusian economics were short-sighted as hell. That is, resources are only as limited as our imagination. Also, Mars looks promising in the event that people's imaginations can't make it over the speedbump.

 

[Darth Cruel]

I read somewhere that Malthusian economics were short-sighted as hell. That is, resources are only as limited as our imagination. Also, Mars looks promising in the event that people's imaginations can't make it over the speedbump.

Definitely more food for thought.

 

[jonny88]

The world is not overpopulated. It's underfunded.

wow, can't agree there. the world is WAY over populated. like the other guy said 6.5 billion people and counting. we are over populated, under funded and out of control.

 

[fosing]

This is a side note..but I actually read somewhere that it was estimated that the Earth could support 1.5 billion people without depleting the resources. The estimate for the world population currently is over 6.5 billion. Food for thought.

the system will eventually balance things out. an impending war, outbreak, rapture, bible hokey can reset that population figures to a bare minimum.

 

[fosing]

wow, can't agree there. the world is WAY over populated. like the other guy said 6.5 billion people and counting. we are over populated, under funded and out of control.

i blame hormones and extended pubertal stage.

 

[jonny88]

the system will eventually balance things out. an impending war, outbreak, rapture, bible hokey can reset that population figures to a bare minimum.

conspiracy theory. governments creating bird flue, swine flue, airborne diseases and so on to thin out the populations.

 

[karamazov80]

Just as soon as those damn Star Trek food replicators start working, we'll all be gravy, and billions more can be born into a life of poverty and hopelessness in the "3rd world"

Like Devil says, though, we just need more imagination. . .

 

[devilof76]

wow, can't agree there. the world is WAY over populated. like the other guy said 6.5 billion people and counting. we are over populated, under funded and out of control.

the system will eventually balance things out. an impending war, outbreak, rapture, bible hokey can reset that population figures to a bare minimum.

Just as soon as those damn Star Trek food replicators start working, we'll all be gravy, and billions more can be born into a life of poverty and hopelessness in the "3rd world"

Like Devil says, though, we just need more imagination. . .

 

[devilof76]

Definitely more food for thought.

You know who were big fans of Thomas Malthus? Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. One deserves credit for the Russian Revolution (and every other two-bit dictatorship of the 20th century) and the other deserves credit for the market crash of '29, the Great Depression, and the current situation (the housing crash as well as the subsequent 'solution').

Dig in. Just be careful that you don't make yourself sick.

 

[fosing]

Just as soon as those damn Star Trek food replicators start working, we'll all be gravy, and billions more can be born into a life of poverty and hopelessness in the "3rd world"

Like Devil says, though, we just need more imagination. . .

or that matrix stuff, liquefy the dead to feed the slaves.
it sure will be interesting, when man is on the menu.
...China has the edge, IMO. they eat almost every living thing there is.

if it bleeds....we can eat it.

 

[BadMoon]

Not sure why everyone is talking about being over populated? The population at least in the United States I believe will start to shrink. Not grow. Less people having kids and a ton of people die every year.

The census bureau is reporting that 2010 population growth is the slowest its been since the great depression (1930).

I think it has to do with our flouridated water supply and chem trails. The government is slowly killing us off.

 

[devilof76]

Yup. By making us poorer. That's what happens when you shift the possession of wealth from those who make it to those who only consume it. A person who only makes enough to subsist will never add to the total. A person who makes more than they need to subsist is the reason why there is ever more than there was before. An economy that does not grow will flatline. Flatlined economy will see zero population growth because it will never be able to provide for more.

An economy that perpetually grows allows for a perpetually rising population. If that's a problem for people then they better get in shape. Not only will they be chasing their food, they will be chased, and if they don't want to be soilent green for the other meat-eaters on the planet, they 'd better be able to run.

Ironically, I don't think we'd have to worry about animal rights anymore if we were reduced to a zero-growth populace. Their populations would skyrocket.