RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans

RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

Loki45 -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 12:04:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Oh yeah that's right...cameras on every corner,the universal presumption of guilt without their having been a crime committed...a lovely solution that is, to be sure. Allow the government invasive powers in order to insure fewer innocents are killed by the state....how about we just stop murdering people? As I said....if you can get us to a utopia where that is the case, fine. But you can't.

Loki45 -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 12:05:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Hold on, I thought you were against quoting fictional books. The one youu are quoting is over 2000 years old, so clearly even less of an authority than the one which is merely 60 years old. You can't have it both ways dude. Ahh but the fictional book I was referring to is widely accepted by everyone to be fiction. It was even written as fiction. The one you're calling fiction is actually believed true by a vast number of accepted world religions.

Loki45 -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 12:06:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Loki, I admire your stand. You accept that you have blood on your hands due to executions. That is my main point. You are OK with that, I, however, am not. So while we agree on where the moral responsibility for an execution lays, we disagree only as to if that responsibility is an acceptable moral burden. Actually, we don't agree. I say I don't have blood on my hands. I do say that if I do, I'd rather it be my way by way of accident than an innocent victim by way of letting a killer out onto the streets.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 12:11:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Loki, I admire your stand. You accept that you have blood on your hands due to executions. That is my main point. You are OK with that, I, however, am not. So while we agree on where the moral responsibility for an execution lays, we disagree only as to if that responsibility is an acceptable moral burden. Actually, we don't agree. I say I don't have blood on my hands. I do say that if I do, I'd rather it be my way by way of accident than an innocent victim by way of letting a killer out onto the streets. So you're so adamant about making sure innocent people aren't murdered by criminals, you're perfectly willing to let innocent people be executed by the state in order to make sure innocent people aren't murdered by criminals?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 12:13:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Oh yeah that's right...cameras on every corner,the universal presumption of guilt without their having been a crime committed...a lovely solution that is, to be sure. Allow the government invasive powers in order to insure fewer innocents are killed by the state....how about we just stop murdering people? As I said....if you can get us to a utopia where that is the case, fine. But you can't. Neither can your cameras. Do you have any idea how many tens of trillions of cameras it would take to cover every square foot of the United States? It's completely impossible. There's just no way in the world to pull this off. You've got to take a moment to think that through, man.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 12:15:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig And he wouldn't be free if he were imprisoned for life either. If it were truly 'life' no. But we all already agree that life isn't 'life.' Easy to fix. Make life without parole mean life without parole. Period. Just write the law that way, and it's done.

Loki45 -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 12:28:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda So you're so adamant about making sure innocent people aren't murdered by criminals, you're perfectly willing to let innocent people be executed by the state in order to make sure innocent people aren't murdered by criminals? Basically um....yeah. Because more often than not, those who 'do' get falsely convicted aren't exactly saints. They aren't exactly good, law-abiding folks. Does execution of innocents happen? Yep. Same as our troops die in war. But to allow killers to live to prevent an accident that might happen is a little silly. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Neither can your cameras. Do you have any idea how many tens of trillions of cameras it would take to cover every square foot of the United States? It's completely impossible. There's just no way in the world to pull this off. You've got to take a moment to think that through, man. I didn't say it would be easy. But it would be a help. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Easy to fix. Make life without parole mean life without parole. Period. Just write the law that way, and it's done. Nope, then you still have the basic problem that you can't get around. The innocent victim -- dead. The murderer -- alive.

stella41b -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 1:17:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 Wanna bet? People have been killed waiting in the long waits at ERs. Others have died because someone shut off their power because they couldn't pay the bill because it was too high. Yes it would appear that life is indeed cheap. But that doesn't make it right. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 No, but you prefer 'life sentences' which we already agree are not really 'life' sentences. Not quite. I'm in favour of life without parole . This isn't the same as a 'life sentence' as in that of a predetermined number of years but not lasting someone's natural life. However you seem to have this mental block in understanding the phrase composed of the words 'life', 'without' and 'parole' together. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 People dehumanize themselves when they do what those people do that lead me to call them that. Wow another interesting point. People commit murder for a wide variety of reasons and motives including mental illness, mental retardation, stress, and so called 'crimes of passion'. None of these motives of course ever justify the crime committed but it's interesting to observe that you see people who are mentally ill or who are suffering from mental retardation as less than human. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 No, but if the life sentence isn't really a life sentence, or if they kill a prison guard while in prison, that's on the heads of those who advocate against the death penalty. You want them given 'life' knowing full well it's not really 'life.' That means that you knowingly give them a sentence that you are fully aware can lead to them being free to kill again. Okay, seeing as you're restating this point I'm going to call you on it. Do you have any hard facts or figures to back up your assertions here? Off the top of my head for example I can only think of two cases where convicted killers on Death Row have killed another prisoner whilst on Death Row and I'm pretty sure that in total I don't think that figure exceeds much more than half a dozen cases. In fact I'm pretty confident that in the vast majority of cases those convicted of murder once sentenced do not kill ever again and here we are talking almost all killers held in custody and serving their sentences. But I am prepared to be proved wrong on this point. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 We're clear. And we're clear that there is no real 'life without parole.' It's starting to become an option in some places, but in others, it's not. So it's NOT really 'life' in every case. Either way, fundamentally what you're doing is providing LIFE for someone who couldn't do the same for his victim. And I disagree very much with that. It's starting to become an option in some places? And we're clear that there is no real 'life without parole'. Okay read closely, you might actually learn something. There are some states in the US where a convict can be released on parole after a decade or more has passed. For example sentences of '15 years to life' or '25 years to life' may be given and this is called an indeterminate life sentence. However a sentence of 'life without the possibility of parole' is called a determinate life sentence. In this instance only a government official such as a governor or the President has the power to grant amnesty or reprieves or commute a sentence to time served. All but one state - Alaska - including every one of the 35 states which have the death penalty have the power to impose determinate life sentences i.e. 'life without the possibility of parole'. Under the federal criminal code with respect to offenses committed after December 1, 1987 parole has been abolished which means that all federal life sentences are determinate, or 'life sentence without the possibility of parole. Life without the possibility of parole exists not just in the United States but also in Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Burma, Canada, China, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazachstan, Kirinati, Laos, Latvia, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. It also exists under international law. There is no real 'life without parole'? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 Oh I don't know. As I understand it the crime rates in those societies is much lower than ours. So, yeah it kinda is better in some ways. The population is lower too. I won't mention the record on human rights. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 Oh I see. You'd rather, then, that only the family of the innocent victim be 'bereaved?' That's awfully mean. I'd rather killers be killed. If that makes me uncaring....I prefer to think it makes me VERY caring....about the innocent victims. What makes you arrive at that conclusion? Actually I'd rather no family is ever bereaved through anyone being killed but it would appear that this isn't possible and so I'd rather go for as few families being bereaved as possible and that to me means abolishing capital punishment and replacing it with a realistic deterrent against serious crimes such as, but not restricted to, murder. I'd even be inclined to extend the possibility that someone gets 'life without the possibility of parole' not just for murder but also for terrorism, rape, and almost all violent crimes. You might see this as mean, I would call it consistent in placing the same high regard for human life and not seeking to take or deprive someone of that life by any means.

Loki45 -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 1:56:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stella41b Not quite. I'm in favour of life without parole . This isn't the same as a 'life sentence' as in that of a predetermined number of years but not lasting someone's natural life. However you seem to have this mental block in understanding the phrase composed of the words 'life', 'without' and 'parole' together. Oh I understand it just fine. And it's all well and good except for the two words you can't get around. Victim = dead. Murderer = alive. You're willing to accept that, I'm not. quote: ORIGINAL: stella41b Okay, seeing as you're restating this point I'm going to call you on it. Do you have any hard facts or figures to back up your assertions here? Off the top of my head for example I can only think of two cases where convicted killers on Death Row have killed another prisoner whilst on Death Row and I'm pretty sure that in total I don't think that figure exceeds much more than half a dozen cases. Really? Look up the stats for escapes, then the stats for re-offending, then the stats for those who kill and rape prison guards. At almost 4 am, I personally don't care to do that for myself. I'm willing to go on the plethora of articles I've read in the last couple of years. And it's been more than a half a dozen. However.....I haven't seen many cases of innocents being executed. I'm sure it happens, but aside from the OP...I don't recall hearing about many. quote: ORIGINAL: stella41b In fact I'm pretty confident that in the vast majority of cases those convicted of murder once sentenced do not kill ever again and here we are talking almost all killers held in custody and serving their sentences. But here we have a problem. I've already stipulated that some innocent people, through bad evidence, a bad series of life choices, etc, end up executed. However, I know for a fact some murderers and rapists do reoffend. So who do we all to continue? The 'killers' whose job is to remove real murderers from our society, or those who murder simply because they find it fun? quote: ORIGINAL: stella41b It's starting to become an option in some places? And we're clear that there is no real 'life without parole'. Okay read closely, you might actually learn something. There are some states in the US where a convict can be released on parole after a decade or more has passed. For example sentences of '15 years to life' or '25 years to life' may be given and this is called an indeterminate life sentence. However a sentence of 'life without the possibility of parole' is called a determinate life sentence. In this instance only a government official such as a governor or the President has the power to grant amnesty or reprieves or commute a sentence to time served. All but one state - Alaska - including every one of the 35 states which have the death penalty have the power to impose determinate life sentences i.e. 'life without the possibility of parole'. Under the federal criminal code with respect to offenses committed after December 1, 1987 parole has been abolished which means that all federal life sentences are determinate, or 'life sentence without the possibility of parole. Life without the possibility of parole exists not just in the United States but also in Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Burma, Canada, China, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazachstan, Kirinati, Laos, Latvia, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. It also exists under international law. There is no real 'life without parole'? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. And yet strangely, in those states, people on 'life sentences' get released all the time. Strange that. quote: ORIGINAL: stella41b What makes you arrive at that conclusion? Actually I'd rather no family is ever bereaved through anyone being killed but it would appear that this isn't possible and so I'd rather go for as few families being bereaved as possible and that to me means abolishing capital punishment and replacing it with a realistic deterrent against serious crimes such as, but not restricted to, murder. I'd even be inclined to extend the possibility that someone gets 'life without the possibility of parole' not just for murder but also for terrorism, rape, and almost all violent crimes. You might see this as mean, I would call it consistent in placing the same high regard for human life and not seeking to take or deprive someone of that life by any means. Unfortunately, you can't have your way. Because there are killers out there that cause innocent families grief. Thus, to eliminate the ability to give that grief back, you're limiting it to only one group -- the innocent victims.

Marc2b -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 8:06:37 AM)
quote: No it is not bigotry, it is simply the truth. That is what is wrong with the death penalty, it forces all within that jurisdiction to share the guilt of the killing. It is done in the name of and by the authority of the people of the State, not some of the people, but all of the people. You talking about legal theory but, as my Grandfather used to say: “there are legalities and then there are realities.” The State can dance the Charleston with its’ thumb up it’s ass but that don’t mean my thumb smells funky. The reality is that any one individual has very little if any (e.g. minors) say over what the State can or can not do. It is wrong to besmirch so many people simply because you don’t agree with governmental policy. You are treading on very dangerous ground when you assign people blame for things that are out of their control – it is akin to blaming the son for the sins of the father.

Arpig -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 8:37:30 AM)
No Marc, it isn't even in the same ballpark. There are a whole bunch of you arguing that when your government kills somebody in your name you are absolved of any responsibility. It just doesn't work that way, and that is what is so very wrong about the death penalty. It is the executions that besmirch people, not I. When the state executes somebody then simply by definition it is "the people" of that state as a collective unit that has done the killing, and therefore it is "the people" of that state that bear the responsibility. If your conscience doesn't bother you when there is an execution, fine. But I suspect that the exact opposite is the case, that you argue so fervently that there is no blame or responsibility to be attached to you because your conscience does bother you when the state uses the authority it gets from you to kill somebody in your name. It is this murdser-by-proxy that makes the death penalty so wrong.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 8:54:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda So you're so adamant about making sure innocent people aren't murdered by criminals, you're perfectly willing to let innocent people be executed by the state in order to make sure innocent people aren't murdered by criminals? Basically um....yeah. Because more often than not, those who 'do' get falsely convicted aren't exactly saints. They aren't exactly good, law-abiding folks. So you'd be comfortable living in a country where the government has the right to execute innocent people just because they probably have it coming anyway? Are you really sure about that? Because that honestly doesn't sound like you. But assuming you do really mean that, I'll ask you again for a number. If getting vengeance on murderers is so important to you that you're perfectly willing to execute some innocent people in order to make sure murderers get killed too, how many innocent people are you willing to execute in order to get that emotional satisfaction? Is there a number? You say you're OK with some innocent people getting executed, but is there some point at which you would reconsider? Or are you willing to execute an unlimited number of innocent people in order to feel better about making sure murderers are getting killed too? And at least one of us has asked this question at least once, too - are you saying you're perfectly OK with the government executing someone you love - even though they're innocent - in order to make sure you're getting your vengeance against murderers? That's really alright with you? Because again, that doesn't sound like you. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Neither can your cameras. Do you have any idea how many tens of trillions of cameras it would take to cover every square foot of the United States? It's completely impossible. There's just no way in the world to pull this off. You've got to take a moment to think that through, man. I didn't say it would be easy. But it would be a help. If I understood your proposal correctly, you were suggesting that we employ a camera system so extensive it could be relied upon for 100% certainty in all criminal prosecutions. Cameras everywhere, everything everybody does anywhere recorded on camera, any time any crime is committed we know exactly who did it - beyond the shadow of a doubt - because every single thing anyone does anywhere is caught on camera. That's impossible. It isn't that it's not easy, it's that it's absolutely impossible. So once again we'd be left with having to convict people (and possibly condemn them to death) based upon the same system of evidence upon which we rely today. The tens, or hundreds of trillions of dollars we spent on these cameras to make our justice system foolproof would be wasted because the cameras would be essentially useless, and we'd still be right back where we started from. Having to rely on a flawed system to condemn people to death. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Easy to fix. Make life without parole mean life without parole. Period. Just write the law that way, and it's done. Nope, then you still have the basic problem that you can't get around. The innocent victim -- dead. The murderer -- alive. Earlier you said that the problem you had with life sentences was that it meant some murderers get out of prison on parole. Does this mean you're abandoning that argument and acknowledging that the only thing you really care about in this matter is that murderers get killed? quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 Oh I understand it just fine. And it's all well and good except for the two words you can't get around. Victim = dead. Murderer = alive. You're willing to accept that, I'm not. And you're willing to accept innocent people = executed. Because somehow you think that's better than murderers = alive. I can live with my compromise a hell of a lot more easily than I could live with yours.

stella41b -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 9:14:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 Oh I understand it just fine. And it's all well and good except for the two words you can't get around. Victim = dead. Murderer = alive. You're willing to accept that, I'm not. Okay, let's say for example I take a guy, any guy, and I have him locked up in a room, and I tell him I'm going to kill him, but not then, because I also make him plead for his life. This goes on for a number of years until suddenly I kill him, as I originally intended. I would only need to kill one person in this manner to be assured of getting the death penalty in any one of the 35 states in the US. This would be cruel, heinous, and downright callous. But this is what most Death Row inmates goes through and in the name of the people. I mean let's face it, we condemn people who treat animals in this way, but not fellow humans? Very few murders are that callous or cruel. Almost all murders are done with total premeditation, they are planned, and in the vast majority of cases the murderers show far more humanity for their victims than they themselves face on Death Row. Does this make their killing better in some way? No it doesn't. It doesn't because the result is still the same - a life is taken, a person is dead and a family bereaved and nothing you or I or anyone else can do is ever going to change those facts. Now I accept those facts. Killing with premeditation or as a result of negligence is wrong, and it doesn't matter whether it is done at the request of a gang member, an accomplice or the people of a state it is still wrong. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 Really? Look up the stats for escapes, then the stats for re-offending, then the stats for those who kill and rape prison guards. At almost 4 am, I personally don't care to do that for myself. I'm willing to go on the plethora of articles I've read in the last couple of years. And it's been more than a half a dozen. However.....I haven't seen many cases of innocents being executed. I'm sure it happens, but aside from the OP...I don't recall hearing about many. I did make the point of killing again while in custody but you start talking about escapes shifting the goalposts yet again. So okay, we'll play it your way. Let's take for example the state of Florida, 391 inmates on Death Row, 68 executions since 1976, for the year 2007-2008 the inmate population was 98,192, 12.5% of who were incarcerated for murder/manslaughter, 4 executions took place that year, there were 128 completed escapes of which 125 (97.7%) were recaptured as of July 17, 2008, and of those 56 (44.8%) were recaptured within 24 hours of their escape. This leaves 3 successful escapes, no figures as to whether those who escaped were convicted killers or whether they killed after they escaped, but I would suggest that it's highly unlikely. So what about overall? Let's take a look at the article entitled How often do prisoners escape? by Chris Suellentrop on a website called 'Slate'. How often do prisoners in the US escape? According to the article not often, in 1998 for example taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics there were 6,503 prisoners AWOL from state prisons which amounted to little more than half a per cent of the 1,100,224 state prisoners incarcerated nationwide. The numbers are falling, and while there are still thousands of escapees each year the vast majority of them are 'walk aways' from community corrections facilities - hardly the place where you expect to find convicted murderers. This above is just the tip of the iceberg, but these aren't stories, these are facts. If you have something which contradicts what I've presented above and are bothered to do the research I'd be interested, but I'm pretty sure you could go through all or most of the Department of Corrections reports and find statistics pretty much similar to those from Florida. Texas currently has 1,024 inmates on Death Row, it leads with the number of executions and the number of inmates murdered while on Death Row - only 2 inmates have been murdered while on Death Row. Moving on to innocence since 1973 some 135 people in 26 states have been released from Death Row with evidence of their innocence. Those executed with serious doubts to their guilt include Carlos DeLuna executed by Texas in 1989, Ruben Cantu executed by Texas in 1993, Larry Griffin executed by Missouri in 1995, Joseph O'Dell executed by Virginia in 1997, David Spence executed by Texas also in 1997, Leo Jones executed by Florida in 1998, Gary Graham executed by Texas in 2000 and Cameron Willingham by Texas in 2004. There could be a considerable number of others executed but we have no way of knowing and can only speculate. However you accept that innocent people can be killed with premeditation because the system isn't perfect. Please explain to me how that line of thinking differs from that of a convicted murderer? quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 So who do we all to continue? The 'killers' whose job is to remove real murderers from our society, or those who murder simply because they find it fun? Again, please explain to me how that line of thinking differs from that of say, a mafia boss? Not just innocent people get murdered, but criminals too. I mean, you're so intent on removing real murderers from society, and from my perspective this is no different from a hitman seeking to 'execute' a member of a rival gang because he's killed somebody. Two wrongs don't make a right, not in my book at least. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 And yet strangely, in those states, people on 'life sentences' get released all the time. Strange that. Yes and in the vast majority of cases they don't reoffend or kill again. Funny isn't it? quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 Unfortunately, you can't have your way. Because there are killers out there that cause innocent families grief. Thus, to eliminate the ability to give that grief back, you're limiting it to only one group -- the innocent victims. Okay so we can have it your way and instead of having one innocent family's grief we compound it and cause grief to another family just so as to be sure that someone who has murdered won't murder again. Why not take it one step further and remove all those who think killing is justified? However this would unfortunately mean that you would also be removed from society. Think about it. However I stand by my morals that killing is wrong - period. I also stand by my humanity, compassion and my high regard for life.

Marc2b -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 12:24:59 PM)
quote: No Marc, it isn't even in the same ballpark. There are a whole bunch of you arguing that when your government kills somebody in your name you are absolved of any responsibility. It just doesn't work that way, and that is what is so very wrong about the death penalty. It is the executions that besmirch people, not I. When the state executes somebody then simply by definition it is "the people" of that state as a collective unit that has done the killing, and therefore it is "the people" of that state that bear the responsibility. If your conscience doesn't bother you when there is an execution, fine. But I suspect that the exact opposite is the case, that you argue so fervently that there is no blame or responsibility to be attached to you because your conscience does bother you when the state uses the authority it gets from you to kill somebody in your name. It is this murdser-by-proxy that makes the death penalty so wrong. I have already stated (on this and on previous threads) that my one and only reason for being against the death penalty is the possibility that an innocent person might be put to death. If there were a fool proof way to ensure that only the guilty get the needle then I’d be all for it – but there isn’t so I remain opposed. I argue against your calling people murders because the live in a death penalty state because: A) It is simply wrong to besmirch people for something they didn’t do. Under your “logic” every German who lived during the 1940’s is guilty for the Holocaust – even those who actively (at risk, and often the expense, of their own lives) worked to save people from it. Using your “logic” every Russian is guilty for the Gulag since “enemies of the State” were sent there in the name of the State (i.e. the people). B) Blaming an entire group of people for the actions of a portion of that group is the kind of thinking that has lead to far to many times to oppression, tragedy and atrocity in human history. If you are determined to label people murderers for no other reason than where they live – using nothing more than cheap legal rhetoric to excuse your bigotry - well, I can’t stop you. But I had thought better of you. Edited to add: Since you deem the people who live in death penalty states to be murderers - what do you suggest their punishment should be?

Loki45 -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 2:17:11 PM)
Panda, Stella, it's obvious that you two aren't going to agree with me. It should be equally obvious that I'm not going to agree with you. Why not call a spade a spade and be done with it? You're both going on like you're trying to convince me and vice versa. It isn't going to happen. I've acknowledged the system isn't perfect, but I am unwilling to let killers live. You both seem perfectly fine with that. I'm not. I side more with the victims, I guess. I don't feel a person who brutally murders someone should remain in this world. You do. That's great for you. Go on believing that. I'm in a state that has the death penalty. I'm happy about that. I smiled when I saw on the news that the piece of garbage that callously murdered two christian record producers will be put to death. I think he deserves it. So does his family. They said as much on TV. You don't like it, grand. I do. I'm willing to bet that although our system isn't perfect, and yes occaionally an innocent person is convicted.....murderers kill FAR more innocent people than "the state" does. I hope the system continues to improve to do as much as possible to prevent false convictions. But in the meantime, I'm glad we have the death penalty.

philosophy -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 2:31:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 I've acknowledged the system isn't perfect, but I am unwilling to let killers live. You both seem perfectly fine with that. I'm not. I side more with the victims, I guess. I don't feel a person who brutally murders someone should remain in this world. You do. That's great for you. Go on believing that. ...fair enough. So what about the killers of Todd Willingham? Do they get a free pass because it was done officially? Your position would be logically consistent if you also argued for justice for Todd Willingham. Thus far i've missed that bit.......

stella41b -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 2:34:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 Panda, Stella, it's obvious that you two aren't going to agree with me. It should be equally obvious that I'm not going to agree with you. I know that Loki but hell, wasn't the exchange of views and discussions fun while they lasted? I may not share your views but I admire your conviction and I also admire the fact that not once did you resort to personal attacks or flaming, and it's been enjoyable discussing this topic with you. Just wanted to point that out and say thanks.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 2:52:40 PM)
POINT OF ORDER... quote: The data shows that the recidivism rate for released murderers is very low, and the incidence of a 2nd murder even lower still. Recidivism rates do not serve your point. Executed murderers have a ZERO recidivism rate. Pragmatically the fact that zero does not represent reality for first or, worse yet, 2nd time murderers is just about the best case made in favor for the death penalty in light of your representation that even 2nd offenders get out on parole. Just sayin.... Not that it changes my ambivalent position.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 6:55:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 Basically um....yeah. Because more often than not, those who 'do' get falsely convicted aren't exactly saints. They aren't exactly good, law-abiding folks. Does execution of innocents happen? Yep. Same as our troops die in war. But to allow killers to live to prevent an accident that might happen is a little silly. This is very true. You can tell just by looking at them. Besides, if they were good, law-abiding folks, they wouldn't have gotten falsely convicted, right? Where there's smoke, there's fire.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/27/2009 7:12:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...fair enough. So what about the killers of Todd Willingham? Do they get a free pass because it was done officially? Your position would be logically consistent if you also argued for justice for Todd Willingham. Thus far i've missed that bit....... Listen, this is a harsh lesson to learn, but it's necessary. It doesn't matter who's innocent or guilty. What matters is that kids died, and a community feels bad about it, and they want it to be someone's fault. They want someone to pay for what they did to those poor, innocent children. Moreso, the community's got a lot of other stresses - jobs, immigration, dark-skinned people moving in and ruining your property values, you name it - and the community needs to absolve itself of those stressors. So, when things start to boil over, you have to make an example of someone, even if there's nothing to make an example for. And the police and the DA know that, in the backs of their minds, even if they'd never let it drift far enough forward into their consciousness to admit it. And so, what you get is a sacrifice. And the occasional sacrifice does what it's always done - appeases the spirit of unrest that has gripped the people, so they can calm down and get back to work.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875