Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't say that - you assumed that. You don't know what my opinion of the death penalty is.
I asked you a question, and you're not answering it.
What are your motivations behind the death penalty and answer my previous question instead of dodging.
Edit: Also you did say it, how about you correct what you said for once in this entire thread.
"Let's say it is proven that the state accidently killed someone, will that effect your opinions on the death penalty?"
"Anyway, nope it wouldn't change my opinion."
Okay, so since we are operating in the frame of reality:
When we execute someone who is innocent, who is guilty and what is the punishment? How do you even handle a situation where someone is proven innocent after an execution?
As said although tragic, and it should be investigated how the DA and police force botched the job and (if) those responsible with held or concealed evidence they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
The reality? Which reality do you refer to? The one where some folks think cold blooded killers are just misunderstood nice guys? Or perhaps the one where Cold blooded killers actually should be punished for what they have done?
As said although tragic, and it should be investigated how the DA and police force botched the job and (if) those responsible with held or concealed evidence they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
The reality? Which reality do you refer to? The one where some folks think cold blooded killers are just misunderstood nice guys? Or perhaps the one where Cold blooded killers actually should be punished for what they have done?
I'm referring to the reality where on an infinite timeline the court system is not infallible and that an innocent guy gets killed via execution by the state.
And what do you mean by "full extent of the law". What is an appropriate punishment and to what parties for systemically killing an innocent guy?
I mean, you seem to be trying to marginilize the point by calling them "misunderstood nice guys" but this guy might ACTUALLY have been an innocent citizens of the United States who has been killed by the state.
Are you okay with systematic failures like that killing an innocent so that you can preserve the death penalty? Why do you feel that having a couple stragglers killed by the state is okay on the condition that we retain the death penalty?
The reality? Which reality do you refer to? The one where some folks think cold blooded killers are just misunderstood nice guys? Or perhaps the one where Cold blooded killers actually should be punished for what they have done?
I don't think that anyone will disagree that cold blooded killers should be punished. I think there is disagreement on the nature of that punishment and the consequences of the punishment should it subsequently be proved that the state has made a mistake.
As said although tragic, and it should be investigated how the DA and police force botched the job and (if) those responsible with held or concealed evidence they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Public officials are indemnified for botching prosecutions, so there isn't any recourse or even fear of penalties which can be used to curb miscarriages of justice.
Quote:
Which reality do you refer to? The one where some folks think cold blooded killers are just misunderstood nice guys?
I don't know of any of the opponents of the death penalty who hold such a view. Many believe that there are considerable mitigating circumstances that should be considered during sentencing, but no one, I repeat no one, believes that their acts should go unpunished.
If you live in a state that has the death penalty, do not engage in risky or sketchy behavior. Your chances of being wrongly convicted and eliminated as a threat to society greatly decrease.
I'm comfortable with a 50:1 ratio. Fifty known, convicted threats to society eliminated versus one innocent. I'm ok with that. Who knows how many lives have been ended by killing unborn children and everyone seems ok with that.
This is also what I love the "innocent bystander". If you know that your neighborhood is dangerous minimize your time outside. If you know your friends are drug dealers/gang members, even fringe members you are no longer an innocent bystander. You desreve everything that comes to you. These apologists for criminals are vomit worthy.
I asked you a question, and you're not answering it.
What are your motivations behind the death penalty and answer my previous question instead of dodging.
Edit: Also you did say it, how about you correct what you said for once in this entire thread.
"Let's say it is proven that the state accidently killed someone, will that effect your opinions on the death penalty?"
"Anyway, nope it wouldn't change my opinion."
Feel free to clear it up.
I don't know why people get so defensive – I’m not dodging your question. I said in the beginning I didn’t understand your “sarcasm”; perhaps you should have been clearer in your OP that you wanted to discuss people’s opinions on the death penalty.
I am not against the death penalty but I don’t like the way some people (like the man in this case) are sentenced to death while others who’ve committed far worse crimes get life in prison. In my opinion; the death penalty should only be used in absolute scenarios where there is no room for reasonable doubt – serial killers, people who confess, etc (although I know that if there IS reasonable doubt they’re not supposed to go jail in the first place). I know my thinking is pretty nonsensical and would never actually work in real life.
This is also what I love the "innocent bystander". If you know that your neighborhood is dangerous minimize your time outside. If you know your friends are drug dealers/gang members, even fringe members you are no longer an innocent bystander. You desreve everything that comes to you. These apologists for criminals are vomit worthy.
Would you mind pointing out these "apologists for the criminals"? If the article I posted is true he's not a criminal and was in fact executed wrongly by the state.
It was sarcastic, as was the "getting owned" part of the title. Based on what I've seen the death penalty advocates seem to think that it's a big joke when the state kills someone and that we're just getting rid of society's trash by doing so.
This is a case that is outside those grounds (lol owned).
I understood your sarcasm immediately. I thought of two posters in particular who could have said exactly what you said - and meant it.
Wow. How sad, how horrible to accuse an innocent person - and in that way! What is the compensation they owe to this mans family?
Just horrible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
