Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

So... I Got this friend...

Recommended Posts

Jeez Dware I never thought I'd agree with sean on something like this but you're ridiculous. I agree that the death penalty is underused in the US, but to say they don't deserve a fair trial goes against the basic principles of our constitution. Part of the reason the founding fathers rebelled was to prevent stuff like this. If someone accused of murder or rape is killed without a trial, whats to stop the government from just killing citizens it doesn't like under the guise that they were thought to have raped someone?

 

I'm talking about undoubted proof, as there is in a lot of cases.

 

Multiple witnesses

DNA all over the scene and weapon.

 

I'm not saying conviction= execution. I'm saying definite guilt= execution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about undoubted proof, as there is in a lot of cases.

 

Multiple witnesses

DNA all over the scene and weapon.

 

I'm not saying conviction= execution. I'm saying definite guilt= execution.

 

How can you prove definite guilt though? Guys with prints on the scene have been proven to be innocent before. Prosecutors will hide evidence pointing at another guy, just to get some innocent shmuck in the wrong place convicted by making it look "definite". What you are proposing is lunacy, would lead to innocent deaths... and above all else, like Blots mentions. Violates the very foundation of the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about undoubted proof, as there is in a lot of cases.

 

Multiple witnesses

DNA all over the scene and weapon.

 

I'm not saying conviction= execution. I'm saying definite guilt= execution.

Oh then never mind.

We just need to find some way to determine whether or not there is definite proof. Both sides can argue whether or not the proof is as flawless as originally assumed.

What would something like that be called? Oh yeah. A trial.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this type of judiciary system...whatever crime you commit, that's your punishment.

 

We'll accomodate the "proven until guilty" folks and go through the whole trial process. Granted there's a few exceptions but as simple as this sounds I think it'd definitely make people think twice before they do certain crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Executing without trial would eventually end up like this.

see, but they actually had trials, as much of a sham as they may have been, there were trials before the executions

 

I'm talking about undoubted proof, as there is in a lot of cases.

 

Multiple witnesses

DNA all over the scene and weapon.

 

I'm not saying conviction= execution. I'm saying definite guilt= execution.

you've still gotta have a trial to show the undoubted proof

 

How about this type of judiciary system...whatever crime you commit, that's your punishment.

 

We'll accomodate the "proven until guilty" folks and go through the whole trial process. Granted there's a few exceptions but as simple as this sounds I think it'd definitely make people think twice before they do certain crimes.

how would you punish something like animal cruelty (where this thread started) under that sort of system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or theft. If you rob from a billionaire, chances are you don't have the funds to replace that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

see, but they actually had trials, as much of a sham as they may have been, there were trials before the executions

 

 

you've still gotta have a trial to show the undoubted proof

 

 

how would you punish something like animal cruelty (where this thread started) under that sort of system?

 

Do the same type of cruelty to them.

 

And yeah, like I said blots not everything would be covered for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the same type of cruelty to them.

 

And yeah, like I said blots not everything would be covered for that.

so if someone runs over a bunch of ducks in his hummer you would have him run over with a hummer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if someone runs over a bunch of ducks in his hummer you would have him run over with a hummer?

 

That....would be hilarious.

 

Hahahaha It's funny because I don't know him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, because not everybody accused of those crimes is guilty. Girls fake being raped a lot. Should a 22 year old be hung because he slept with a 16 year old girl who looked older and was at a friend of his' college party? There are people who come off of death row because they're proven innocent. Obviously enough my problem with your idea is that I could possibly be hung for either something minor or something I didn't do.

this^ rape is a fucked up thing, I have known girls who have been raped and it scars them for life. But just as fucked up is the girls who say fake rape. Which happens a lot, because girls who are raped don't go anyone about it a lot of times because it's too hard to talk about. But the girls who go around telling everyone that they were raped were most likely not. They make all of us football players sit through a few hours of hearing someone tell us about the people who fake being raped. Basically if she is drunk at a party and you take her home and bang her, even if you're drunk yourself, she can claim rape because she was intoxicated. So do you want to hang someone because they went to a party and fucked a drunk chick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this type of judiciary system...whatever crime you commit, that's your punishment.

 

We'll accomodate the "proven until guilty" folks and go through the whole trial process. Granted there's a few exceptions but as simple as this sounds I think it'd definitely make people think twice before they do certain crimes.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Ghandi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, Ghandi didn't have much choice but to be a pacifist. He weighed like 8 pounds. :shifty:

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×