h a l f b a k e r yNormal isn't your first language, is it?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
We all agree the purpose of the death penalty is to act as a deterrent to homicide (whether it works or not) but nobody wants to accidentally execute an innocent person.
So here's the solution: Whenever a judge (or whoever passes sentence) executes three people later found innocent, he becomes
eligible for the death penalty himself!
What are the objections? That it won't work? Does that mean the death penalty doesn't work? That it will prohibit the sentencer from doing his job? Unless his job is to execute innocent people I don't see how that is possible.
No no no, the death penalty *is* a deterrent, and by executing killer courts we will send a message that we take justice seriously. Are you soft on homicide?
As a perk, if any "hanging judges" suddenly choke back on executions, then we'll know exactly how much they believed in their own judgements!
The purpose of the system is to minimize the suffering of innocents, both inside and outside of the system, and this makes it consistent.
[link]
|
| |
What if you get a suicidal judge? |
|
| |
"But, but, but it was just a parking ticket!" |
|
| |
"Death!" the judge shouted, thinking to himself, "Only one more and I can end this miserable, pathetic existence that is my life. Oh woe! Cannot anyone see that this is just a cry for help? How many people to I have to sentence to the great beyond before they realize that I am the one that is hurting here? I'm the one, I neeeed. I need..." |
|
| |
jc,the entire human race is already subjected to this. Try to concentrate your creative energies in the opposite direction. |
|
| |
Oh. and if you are not entirely sure how to spell homicide or eligible, it may be premature to have fully formed opinions about the death penalty, or to expect those opinions to cary weight |
|
| |
You say //Enforce the same law at all levels//, then limit the idea to judges. In democracies, politicians should also be subject to this (Governor X refused pardons to three individuals later found to be innocent? - Governor X then goes the same way. Voters elected a pro-death sentence Governor? - for each innocent murdered a citizen is selected at random from the membership / donor lists of that party and sent the same way. I wonder how long this state-sanctioned murder would last if that system applied? |
|
| |
tc, thanks for the spelling tip, fixed it (I keep thinking of homo sapiens -cide). |
|
| |
What are my fully formed opinions about the death penalty? |
|
| |
// Seems like your a'gin it. // |
|
| |
Mmm a little but I'm more pro-accountability. If authorities are willing to take what they dish out, then I'll respect their decisions more. |
|
| |
...but the judge doesn't decide guilt, so
you're saying that if juries wrongly
convict people three times for crimes so
serious the judge has to award the
death penalty, the judge should die? |
|
| |
Then you'd have to kill the jury! But wait - what happens if three of them are innocent? |
|
| |
But what if the lawyers were simplying lying to the court? |
|
| |
"The jury has found you guilty of the murders of 100 children. The mandatory sentence for this crime is death. However, I already have two incorrect convictions and I'm afraid of a third. The verdict is overturned. You are free to go." |
|
| |
//We all agree the purpose of the death penalty is to act as a deterrent to homicide //
No we don't. |
|
| |
//the death penalty *is* a deterrent// It must be very effective given how few murders occur annually in the US... |
|
| |
Man, you'd think a subject like "Death Penalty" would lighten the mood, but it seems to have done the opposite. Who'd a-thunk it. |
|
| |