The death penatly.

[NewBirth]

thought this wasnt going 2 b a debate

 

[Josh]

Well it kind of has drifted away from main topic even but I don't see anything wrong with a nice debate like this it's more of a exchange of different ideas and beliefs everyone is being very civil so I think it's great I wish I could get discusions like this in real life.

 

[NewBirth]

change of plans... okay

 

[Fizhik]

Everyone makes very good points here. After reading all your comments I thought about this a little more. I don't think a person should be on death row unless you can prove 100% without a doubt that they are guilty. In the United States, that's how it's supposed to work, but i fully understand that corruption exists on all levels ( a perfect example being the Mumia Abu-Jamal Case).
To clear things up a little, I'm not a mean person, and if given the opportunity to stone a violent criminal, I would definately pass it up. On the other hand, I really do feel that there is no excuse and no forgiveness for a person who sexually abuses a child. Thankfully I had a wonderful and safe childhood, but i know many people who didn't. When you abuse a child, you are stealing their innocence. They can easily shut down emotionally...short-term or long-term. that's how killers are born. I'm not saying anyone who was sexually abused as a child will become a killer......I'm saying a huge percentage of violent criminals were sexually abused as children. I bet if they could stop crimes against children, in 20 years the crime rate will have gone down dramatically. You don't need to kill the killer, if the killer never killed. these are all just my thoughts......hope i didn't offend anyone.

 

[Arianna]

But what if it's an innocent person being stoned to death? You don't concern yourself with that. You prefer to enjoy the thought of punishing those who deserve it, and to forget about the innocent ones..

No..mimizu that's not what I said. I didn't say forget about the innocent ones. Because if you think about it..the innocent ones are the victims..not the predator. If someone is caught..and there's obivious evidence of their guilt.( ie..video camera photos..for example). Then there is no recourse but to eliminate the animal. Think of how public officials react to a rabid beast. There's no difference between a rabid beast (intent on destruction) or a rabid human. Both need eliminating. As for me 'enjoying' the thought. No.. I do not enjoy such thoughts. But it is a necessary step to protect society - especially the children. As I've mentioned before..I have no forgiveness towards violent acts towards little ones. And feel no guilt in admitting this belief.

 

[jales]

yea and like Fizhik said. Even with all the n eye for an eye..
you'd have to be 100% sure.. and you can't ever be 100% sure or anything.

 

[Arianna]

yea and like Fizhik said. Even with all the n eye for an eye..
you'd have to be 100% sure.. and you can't ever be 100% sure or anything.

Sorry I disagree. The case I mentioned about the little girl. Well, the guy's DNA (sperm) was found inside her body. As well as her DNA (and his) - found within the closet where he repeated raped her for three days. And he was able to show the police exactly where he buried her body. Describing the smallest details in relation to the act. So yes..you can be 100% sure.

 

[lonelygirl]

I used to be gung ho for the death penalty--but only for murderers, torturers, etc.

Now I'm quite the opposite!

I think murder is ALWAYS wrong, period. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind!

Those who harm children, though....NO human justice could ever make right what they have stolen from a child or that child's family. Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord. I SHALL REPAY. (Bible quote).

 

[lonelygirl]

Let's add to this debate with the question:

Would you rather let 10 men live than put to death ONE innocent man?

I say, yes.

Therefore, I would suggest that we just keep criminals alive. And we FORCE them to work for a living. If they don't work, they don't eat. They could be doing useful stuff in prison rather than sitting around watching Cable TV (which many free people can't even afford) eating, (yucky food, but still edible) and raping each other and plotting revenge on each other. They should be doing USEFUL work to PAY BACK society for the crime they inflicted on one or more of us.

I would say they should have prisons where people who killed another person HAVE to work to eat. And then they HAVE to be paid and the money HAS to go back to the families of the victims.

 

[mimizu]

Nothing, I assume, it's just her explaining why she feels the way she does.

 

[mimizu]

DNA is not 100%. It is only 1 in the 100's of millions, billions, or even in the trillions. That is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In addition, a DNA laboratory is made up of humans, and humans make mistakes. A tube misplaced somewhere. Or a few thousand bucks given to a certain person - "hey we really need to make a conviction... I hope the DNA analysis results will match. Wink."

There goes your 100% certainty about DNA analysis.

This is especially true in serial murderer cases. Someone that terrorizes the whole town. The police will often catch the closest "suspicious person" just so they can say "we caught the *******".

The problem with "beyond reasonable doubt" is that there have been many people whose guilt has been proven to be "beyond reasonable doubt" and yet they weren't guilty. It was just convenient to blame them. This is why I would prefer to stay away from the cruel punishments. Please think about this.

 

[Fizhik]

here is an excerpt from http://www.dna-geneticconnections.com/

All About DNA Testing Accuracy

Why will results claiming probable inclusion never equal 100%?

In paternity testing, no man will ever be 100% included as the biological father because there is always the slight possibility that the DNA profile of the alleged father matches the DNA profile of the child by mere chance. The likelihood of this happening is usually well below 0.001% (1 in 100,000), but it depends in large part on the ethnic origin of the individuals involved. In addition, it important to note that the certainty usually increases with the number of DNA loci (locations) analyzed. Look for a company that routinely checks at least 15 different loci and that will run additional tests on more locations if there are mutations or inconsistencies.

What does 99.99% probability really mean?

For paternity cases, if the alleged father is not the biological father, the result will be 100% exclusion. However, if the alleged father cannot be excluded as the biological father, the result will be a certain percent inclusion. Make sure you look for a lab that routinely provides at least 99.99% probability of inclusion. This means that there is only a 0.01% chance that another random individual in the same race population could have the same paternity test results. Consider that many companies provide 99.9999% probabilities of inclusion, meaning there is only a 0.0001% chance that another man could be the father.

You should pay close attention to how DNA testing companies describe their testing and results. Even if the test concludes that the alleged father is 100% excluded as the biological father, the test may not have been 100% accurate. False exclusions can occur if a laboratory mixes up the test samples, and the results are for individuals from more than one case.

False inclusions can also occur. If the result is 99.0% inclusion, the chance of a false inclusion is 100 times greater than a 99.99% inclusion.

On October 11, 2006 The Supreme Court issued The Rule on DNA Evidence.
If you would like to read the ruling, here is the link.

http://jlp-law.com/blog/rule-on-dna-evidence-full-text/

sections 8 & 9 are the most relavent to our discussion.

The rule took effect on October 15, 2007

 

[Arianna]

DNA is not 100%. It is only 1 in the 100's of millions, billions, or even in the trillions. That is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Where did you get your information? Below is where I found mine. If collected properly - DNA is the number one factor in determining guilt or innocence. I agree with you about reasonable doubt..however..that's based entirely upon the law and interpretation. Scientific methods today are highly sophisticated..and coupled with intrinsic data. (Which most of us never hear about unless we're involved ourselves..as in the jury). I would have to disagree that such results could stretch into the millions, billions or trillions. Sorry.
Quote:
A person's DNA is their genetic composition. No two individuals, with the exception of identical twins share the same genetic makeup and therefore the same DNA Quote.

http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/dna-evidence.html

 

[Arianna]

DNA is not 100%. It is only 1 in the 100's of millions, billions, or even in the trillions. That is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Where did you get your information? Below is where I found mine. If collected properly - DNA is the number one factor in determining guilt or innocence. I agree with you about reasonable doubt..however..that's based entirely upon the law and interpretation. Scientific methods today are highly sophisticated..and coupled with intrinsic data. (Which most of us never hear about unless we're involved ourselves..as in the jury). I would have to disagree that such results could stretch into the millions, billions or trillions. Sorry.
Quote:
A person's DNA is their genetic composition. No two individuals, with the exception of identical twins share the same genetic makeup and therefore the same DNA Quote.

http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/dna-evidence.html

And I would just like to add..a question. What is the percent of people in prison claiming to be innocent? I'd venture to say almost 100% Funny..some claim science is flawed..but insist human nature should not be judged within scientific measures.

 

[mimizu]

You didn't convince me.. #_# I still don't think that criminals should be stoned or anything cruel like that. If they must be executed, then it should be a "humane" execution. An injection or such.

Your comment about 100% of people in prison claiming to be innocent is cynical. Sure, a criminal will claim that they are innocent. But there are still innocent people there. And I don't want an innocent person to be stoned. Even if the chance is 1 in a trillion, I still don't want them to be stoned.

 

[Arianna]

You didn't convince me.. #_# I still don't think that criminals should be stoned or anything cruel like that. If they must be executed, then it should be a "humane" execution. An injection or such.

Your comment about 100% of people in prison claiming to be innocent is cynical. Sure, a criminal will claim that they are innocent. But there are still innocent people there. And I don't want an innocent person to be stoned. Even if the chance is 1 in a trillion, I still don't want them to be stoned.

No..I am not cynical..just realistic. Are there innocent people in jail? I am certain there are. A large percent that are innocent? No., I highly doubt that..but just think. If it weren't for DNA testing - how many more innocent people would be incarcerated? You have a good heart..no doubt. I just happen to side with the lesser victim..the one that can't fight back through words or actions. Adults that are innocent and in jail at least have that advantage. I am signing off this thread. Not here to fight..just discuss. And I've said my peace so.. good night.

 

[Cosmic Kid]

DNA is not 100%. It is only 1 in the 100's of millions, billions, or even in the trillions. That is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I would have to disagree that such results could stretch into the millions, billions or trillions. Sorry.
Quote:
A person's DNA is their genetic composition. No two individuals, with the exception of identical twins share the same genetic makeup and therefore the same DNA Quote.

http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/dna-evidence.html

Ok Counsler, you're fast on a keyboard, Ill give you that. I'm having problems keeping up. I'm not a DNA Profiler. This is not my area of expertise. LOL (though, at this point, I stand by everything I've typed as true).

Here is what I've gathered, through my many minutes of study on the subject:

DNA is unique from one individual to another. I agree, as I have alluded to in a previous post, that it is the number 1 scientific way of identifying any given individual in a crime. (From what I've heard, fingerprints are becoming yesterday's news).

However, it's the INTERPRETATION of the DNA samples wherein lies the rub.

DNA is different for everyone, yes. BUT...do not forget, everyone also has DNA. How to differentiate one persons DNA from another persons DNA is where the science begins to meet it's limitations. It still is yet to be...that you can take one DNA and say with 100% certainty, that they are both from the same person (is my understanding, so far, anyway).

It has something to do w/ markers (loci is the name of one marker, there's lost of 'em..46 loci?, and other markers too, unless im mistaken). Anyway, all of the markers for a given DNA sample are not matched. I(only 10, 14, whatever).Therefore, there is room for error, because you are excluding a person's DNA from what could possibly be other sets of DNA. Here is the text I've been reading, it's too complicated for me to be able to understand. Anyway...

I'm thinking (however, I'm not certain, YET) that if a DNA sample is taken from a crime scene, and you give a sample of hair to see if it matches...then yes, it can be determined w/ 100% CERTAINTY if one of the markers is NOT A MATCH. (that's why guys are getting outta jail, they KNOW their DNA CANNOT match, w/ 100% certainty..ie, some markers do not match).

But, seeing how all of the (46?) markers are not tested (yet), when their is a "match", it's only matching the markers that are/were tested. it's still not 100% CERTAIN that it couldn't yet be wrong (if, say, all markers were tested). That's why DNA match is quoted in percentile, instead of saying, "it is a 100% match". But, I'm gonna find out from a person who talks english

Arianna, btw, your link also refers to DNA as "exclusionary evidence" iirc. ie, it's excluding everyone else, it's not saying it is you, thus, %'s. Thus, if you are saying that DNA is an EXACT, 100% ERROR FREE identification system, then, at this point, I believe, you'd be wrong. (of course, it is 'good enough' obviously, because the odds of it NOT being you are so unreasonably high). Anyway..

http://forensic-evidence.com/site/EVID/EL_DNAerror.html

http://dna-view.com/profile.htm

It's complicated, but I believe I can get a layman's explanation from a friend...

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/425/425lect15.htm

 

[NewBirth]

i wonder if all this debating is helping with everybodys loneliness
nice us supreme court decision 2day. so many posters & nobody brought it up. so i thought i would

 

[lonelygirl]

Hey Colette,

I just meant that as in the Bible it says, about those who harm children (molest, rape, beat, or murder kids):

It's better for them to have a millstone tied around their neck and for them to be thrown into the deepest pit in the sea than to face what God has in store for them.

(Those who do that and who don't repent).

I do agree that we humans have the right to enforce laws and to ensure that people who prey on other humans go to prison. I just don't think it's right for humans to KILL other humans, period. Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?

It's illogical and hypocritical. Now, please don't get me wrong. If it was my family member killed by some criminal, I know I'd be screaming for blood. I don't know that I could wait for God's vengeance. However, I would also like to think that logically, and generally, I know that killing people is always wrong, period, unless it's in self-defense.

I'm pro-life. I'm consistent. That means that I: am against wars (unless in self-defense), against abortion (deliberately killing a human life) and I"m against death penalty.

 

[user 139760]

As a principle, I'm against the death penalty. However, there are certain examples I feel should be made concerning certain very haineous or hatefull crimes. Mass murderers for example, or rapists, who failed to be rehabilitated.