The Stella awards!!! you gotta read this.

[Cidien]

Most likely guilty yes. But for example there are cases where the evidence is planted.

You have any idea how unlikely it is police plant evidence, and if they did they'd do it to people that are obviously guilty but have no proof. That's another thing I hate but kinda understand. You KNOW somebody is doing something illegal but you can't do anything without "proof". That's what i'm most not looking forward to when i'm a cop.... =/

[Elcoholic]

You're going to be a cop :eek: ? Awesome man. Go for it! When you decide this?

[Zagatto]

I do appreciate the idea of a jury of my peers based on my understanding of the original intent. This system was put in place to avoid having a corrupt government putting judges into power and lock people with opposing viewpoints away without much of a real trial.

Imagine a country where the courts are filled with "impartial" judges that have all been appointed by a ruler that HATES mauve shirts. He could have his judges sentance harsh terms for people who support mauve shirts as a way of life.

The idea is that a jury of peers from within the community would be more likely to support communal views rather than be at the whims of one person who may abuse their power.

So... I support the jury system and I wish that more people would take pride in getting to serve rather than seeing it as a bother and an intrusion on their personal time. It was the involvement of people in their community that built the US to where it is today.

[Cidien]

Also I don't care if someone is mentally unstable in most cases. It doesn't matter if you even remember what you did honestly. You've done something horrible to society and if you don't even remember you'll probably do it again. You need to be locked away or killed. I don't care if someone is mentally unstable if you just killed 7 girls at a local collage. You need to die. The only real problem I have with the death penalty is it costs so damn much money. Then we give these horrible people a more painless death than i'm probably going to have.

[Cidien]

You're going to be a cop :eek: ? Awesome man. Go for it! When you decide this?

Yup. =P I decided this about a year ago for sure. Been going to college for criminal justice now. Only classes in college I don't hate lol.

[gubi-gubi]

1. I think its a sign of civilasation to not have it. And also it puts us (my country) appart from what we see as barbaric countries like Iran, former Afghanisan.

2. People are sometimes found to be not guilty after many years. We've had 2 cases in my country in the past year where people were set free after 5+ years of wrongfull detention. Don't know about US cases but its a good posibility (especialy with jury's although I don't know if they decide those kind of penalties).

3. The Us has no problem with sentencing mentaly unstable people to death. I don't think this is right and I think this is also a big point of discussion in the US right now.

That's exactly how I feel. Especially number 1. There is a documentary out im dieing to see that followed people set free from prison after DNA testing for old cases came in. Alot were on death row. How can the system say they have never exectuted an innocent person? They would have for sure if they hadn't tested the old cases. If just one innocent person has been killed in the past (and it's pretty certain that at least one probably has) then the sytem is wrong. Imagine if was you?

[Andromeda18_]

You have any idea how unlikely it is police plant evidence

Right, 'cause there's no such thing as a corrupt cop.

I do appreciate the idea of a jury of my peers based on my understanding of the original intent. This system was put in place to avoid having a corrupt government putting judges into power and lock people with opposing viewpoints away without much of a real trial.

Imagine a country where the courts are filled with "impartial" judges that have all been appointed by a ruler that HATES mauve shirts. He could have his judges sentance harsh terms for people who support mauve shirts as a way of life.

The idea is that a jury of peers from within the community would be more likely to support communal views rather than be at the whims of one person who may abuse their power.

The original intent was indeed a good one. Unfortunately it's just one of those things that look very nice in theory but not in reality. How many black people have been convicted because members of the jury were racists? Do you doubt that happened? And not just because of racism. If a member of a jury doesn't like the defendant for whatever reason he will likely vote "guilty". And the opposite is also true. Many criminals have walked out because they managed to charm the jury.
I remember we had a thread here sometime ago about how people who don't have a certain level of culture and education shouldn't talk about certain subjects because they only speak nonsense. While I disagree with that, because everybody should have the right to speak their mind, nonsense or not, the jury system has a similar flaw, people judging people's lives based on nonsense. And while speaking nonsense can be pretty harmless, judging a person's life based on a whim isn't.

Also I don't care if someone is mentally unstable in most cases. It doesn't matter if you even remember what you did honestly. You've done something horrible to society and if you don't even remember you'll probably do it again. You need to be locked away or killed. I don't care if someone is mentally unstable if you just killed 7 girls at a local collage. You need to die. The only real problem I have with the death penalty is it costs so damn much money. Then we give these horrible people a more painless death than i'm probably going to have.

The thing with mentally unstable people is that 99% of the time it's a physical thing. Those people have chemical imbalances in their brain that can usually be treated with medicine. Crimes have been perpetrated by schizophrenic people who, when properly medicated, are completely normal. They commited crimes due to their disease.
Then there's the other 1% of people who commit crimes because they're mothers (it's always the mother ) beat the crap out of them and they turned out wrong. In my opinion those need to be punished, no matter how bad they childhood was they did it willingly. Still, I don't think they should be executed. I'm all in favour of "life in prison" but completely against the dead penalty, it's nothing but lawful murder.

[Cidien]

The thing with mentally unstable people is that 99% of the time it's a physical thing. Those people have chemical imbalances in their brain that can usually be treated with medicine. Crimes have been perpetrated by schizophrenic people who, when properly medicated, are completely normal. They commited crimes due to their disease.

I just wish every person who was let back into society and kills again would go after people with these kinds of opinions. If someone in your close family was killed by someone who was let out because they're supposedly better now I doubt you'd still have that same opinion.

[gubi-gubi]

I just wish every person who was let back into society and kills again would go after people with these kinds of opinions. If someone in your close family was killed by someone who was let out because they're supposedly better now I doubt you'd still have that same opinion.

They don't have to be let out you just don't have to kill them. What if someone does get better? Would you still want them killed or locked up? What if it was a member of your family that got sick and commited a crime. You saw them degenerate into someone you didn't recognise anymore. They then got better and were the same person you remembered. Would you still kill them? It's a cop out to kill someone. You just can't think of anything better to do with them or can't be bothered.

[Cidien]

What if it was a member of your family that got sick and commited a crime.

I don't care if I myself get sick and kill someone then get "better". I'm obviously much more prone to do horrible things. What if something happens and I don't take my medicine and end up killing someone else. Do you think it was a good idea to let me out? Just kill me. Yes I think I should be gotten rid of. That stands for anyone in my family who does the same.

[Andromeda18_]

I just wish every person who was let back into society and kills again would go after people with these kinds of opinions. If someone in your close family was killed by someone who was let out because they're supposedly better now I doubt you'd still have that same opinion.

It might surprise you but I don't exactly disagree with you. By saying this I don't mean I agree that mentally unstable people should be killed or even put in prison but I do believe they're not properly taken care of. Another flaw of the system, and not just the American one.
For one, more often than not they aren't treated the way they should and even if they are there's always the risk that once they're released they'll commit a crime again for one reason or another. There isn't, at the moment, an appropriate way of dealing with mentally unstable people who have commited crimes and that's the real problem. Maybe they should never leave the mental institutions they're put in, or maybe they should only have a controlled freedom. What I know is that a person who's commited a crime due to disease shouldn't be treated like someone who commited a crime out of her/his own free will.

[Blight]

Here's yet another interesting link lol: http://www.stellaawards.com/2005.html

This one here is totally wrong.

Wanita "Renea" Young of Durango, Colo. Two neighborhood teens baked cookies for their neighbors as an anonymous gesture of good will, but Young got scared when she heard them on her front porch. They apologized, in writing, but Young sued them anyway for causing her distress, demanding $3,000. When she won(!!) $900, she crowed about it in the newspaper and on national TV. Now, she's shocked (shocked!) that everyone in town hates her for her spite, and is afraid she may have to move. But hey: she won.

I?d like to comment on the whole justice thing, but I?m mentally exhausted from other discussions I?ve been having lately. I will say this though, I used to be in full support of the death penalty, but that was for people who were actually guilty. In Illinois, they got rid of the death penalty because they had found out so many people on death row wear innocent, and they had already killed many others that were innocent as well. If you are gonna kill them, you better make god damn sure they actually did what you say they did. And if you can?t do that, it has to go.

[Cidien]

I?d like to comment on the whole justice thing, but I?m mentally exhausted from other discussions I?ve been having lately. I will say this though, I used to be in full support of the death penalty, but that was for people who were actually guilty. In Illinois, they got rid of the death penalty because they had found out so many people on death row wear innocent, and they had already killed many others that were innocent as well. If you are gonna kill them, you better make god damn sure they actually did what you say they did. And if you can?t do that, it has to go.

That I do agree with.

[gubi-gubi]

That I do agree with.

And I don't see anything wrong with the death penalty, especially as we use it.

You are contradicting yourself. If you agree that the death penalty has to go as innocent people have been killed by it then how can you not 'see anything wrong with the death penalty'?

[Cidien]

I didn't mean it needs to go, I mean it should only be used when were 100% certain they're guilty. Guess I thought that point was fairly obvious.