HERESY said:
in this country its said that you're innocent until proven guilty. does it really work like that?
That is a question that cannot be easily answered until we are fully aware of the circumstances surrounding each individual case and the precautions that must be taken in order to assure the person stands trial. When someone is arrested for murder, should we simply let them know of the accusations, give them a court date and hope they appear in court in order to maintin that one is innocent until proven guilty? Should we let felons live a FREE and INNOCENT life in society up until their court date under the asumption that he is in fact innocent? I think that in many cases, it is necesary to jail a suspect due to the fact that he or she will more then likely skip town and not show up in court because he/she is guilty. It is very hard to understand how we can say someone is innocent when we hold him behind bars, but what choice do we have when someone is charged with multiple homicide's and all the evidence is against him. That is why BAIL is awarded to those that do not appear to pose an immediate threat to society, and who we believe WILL come back to court based solely on trust. In some cases, I believe that a person can be made out to look guilty, and in the process aid a guilty verdict. When a man is deprived of his proper court attire when he stands trial, when the media feeds society lies and hidden truths about what really happened, there are numerous possibilities that could lead someone to believe a person is guilty until proven innocent. The problem is that there is no one way to satisfy absolutely everybody in reguards to ones innocense before they go to court.
HERESY said:
are you judged before a jury of *YOUR* "peers" or judged before a biased jury hand picked to send you to a concrete abyss?
Regardless who picks the jury, weather it be the prosecutor or defense, there is going to be a level of bias judgement held towards every defendant. The jury is picked amongst a population that cannot possibly relate to the circumstances or lifestyle regarding the person being prosecuted. Within every juror there is going to be some biased opinion because, why else would that man be standing in court defending himself, why would the police go after that man if he did not commit that crime. Now in that sense, and im picking up where I left off from my above comments, that man is NOT innocent until proven guilty. In order for one to get off, the defense must
prove his innocense. Now in this case, how can one be innocent until proven guilty be true, when you have to prove your innocense to a jury who already partially believes your guilty before they have even seen you.
HERESY said:
is the death penalty too easy/lite?
I think in some cases it can be to lite, and in others a bit much. When deciding the fate of a guilty person I think there should be more taken into consideration that the charge and verdict. They should look at...
1. Who was killed (i.e. mother of 4 or some crack dealer)
2. The Motive (i.e. did the victim rape the suspects girlfriend)
3. The Capacity of the suspect (was he drunk, insane, coherent)
4. Feelings of Remorse
5. History of Violent Crimes
The judge may or may not take these into consideration when rendering his punishment, but he can be as biased as an jury. I believe a man who, with full capacity and history of violent crimes, plans and kills another innocent mother of 5, should be executed. However, a man who's wife was raped and murdered, goes after his wife's killer and takes his life, should not. Those are easy examples, but I think you can understand where I am coming from.
HERESY said:
is the death penalty inhumane?
No more inhumane than premeditated muder.
HERESY said:
should the death penalty be abolished because innocent people are on death row due to crooked cops and the D.A. doing a rushed job (just to satisfy onlookers)?
I think every case should be seriously re-evaluated to the fullest by the supreme court to assue there is absolutely no doubt this person commited the crime. Personaly I think the deprevation of ones freedom by placing them behind bars is punishment enough for the majority of crimes commited. I think one of the saddest things today is innocent people behind bars, I cannot stress this enough how horrible of an act it is. Have you ever watched the John Walsh show (great show), you might catch an episode like the one I saw today. They had three innocent men who served jail time, one of which I will talk about. I don't remember his name, but he was convicted of murder in 1989. The prosecuters used a person who he had beef with to testify and convict the man. Three years later, the real murderer became an informant and in doing so confessed to the murder. He took a polygraph test and FAILED it, so it was disregarded. 13 YEARS LATER they re-opened the case and the man was eventually set free, he served a total of 17 years behind bars and is now fileing a civil suit against the city of New York for $50 million dollars. That shit is fucking SERIOUS.
I beleive they serve most of their punishment in Gen Pop. Sex crimes do not go well amongst other prisoners. To answer your question, no they should not be put to death. Maybe multiple offenders need to go under the knife.
