Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans

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

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

Message

DomKen -> Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 6:11:44 PM)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-texas-execute-0824-082aug25,0,5812073.story Cameron Todd Willingham was executed by the state of Texas in 2004 for a crime that not only did he not commit but that wasn't committed by anyone at all.

TheHeretic -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 6:27:12 PM)
Collective guilt, huh, Ken? Bit strong, I think. Helluva story, though.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 6:36:02 PM)
I want to hear from those posters who, in the past, have said they support the death penalty but only in cases where the scientific evidence was clear. Because that's exactly how this man was convicted - by the testimony of people who were supposed to be scientific experts.

DomKen -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 6:39:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Collective guilt, huh, Ken? Bit strong, I think. Does the state not mete out justice in the name of its citizens?

Loki45 -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 6:46:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda I want to hear from those posters who, in the past, have said they support the death penalty but only in cases where the scientific evidence was clear. Because that's exactly how this man was convicted - by the testimony of people who were supposed to be scientific experts. Alrighty. I support the death penalty. If a jury convicted a guy, then he was convicted. If he truly was innocent, then his 'blood' is on the hands of those whose testimony convicted him. They're they ones who have to live with that knowledge. If anyone can think of a better system, I'd love to hear it.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 6:49:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda I want to hear from those posters who, in the past, have said they support the death penalty but only in cases where the scientific evidence was clear. Because that's exactly how this man was convicted - by the testimony of people who were supposed to be scientific experts. Alrighty. I support the death penalty. If a jury convicted a guy, then he was convicted. If he truly was innocent, then his 'blood' is on the hands of those whose testimony convicted him. They're they ones who have to live with that knowledge. If anyone can think of a better system, I'd love to hear it. How about not executing people? Works for me!

Loki45 -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 7:03:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda How about not executing people? Works for me! Doesn't work for me. I like knowing that the guy who callously murdered two record producers is going to die for his crime, especially when in his jailhouse interview he non-chalantly looked at the reporter asking him if he had remorse and said "Do it look like it? Better they life than mine." See....now it is his life. And we're going to take it. We're going to assure that no one else will die by his uncarring, unfeeling hand.

Arpig -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 7:07:26 PM)
quote: Collective guilt, huh, Ken? Bit strong, I think. Not even slightly strong enough. This man's blood is on the hands of everybody who supports the death penalty. Period. As long as you allow the government to murder people in your name you are guilty of those murders. quote: Alrighty. I support the death penalty. If a jury convicted a guy, then he was convicted. If he truly was innocent, then his 'blood' is on the hands of those whose testimony convicted him. No, it is not only those that lied who are guilty of his murder, it is the people of Texas who murdered him, and by extension the people of the US. quote: If anyone can think of a better system, I'd love to hear it. What Panda said. I know its a bit of a radical idea, but how about the state not murder people in your name.....just sayin.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 7:08:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda How about not executing people? Works for me! Doesn't work for me. I like knowing that the guy who callously murdered two record producers is going to die for his crime, especially when in his jailhouse interview he non-chalantly looked at the reporter asking him if he had remorse and said "Do it look like it? Better they life than mine." See....now it is his life. And we're going to take it. We're going to assure that no one else will die by his uncarring, unfeeling hand. OK. Fair enough. But then the question becomes, just exactly how many innocent people are you willing to execute in order to get your revenge on guys like that one? Because that's what it comes down to, if you're as honest as I've come to see you. The death penalty is far more about revenge than it is about prevention. So how many innocent people are you willing to execute before the price of vengeance becomes too high? Have you got a number in mind? Obviously one innocent person is not too many for you, so is there a number that would be unacceptable?

Loki45 -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 7:15:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda OK. Fair enough. But then the question becomes, just exactly how many innocent people are you willing to execute in order to get your revenge on guys like that one? Because that's what it comes down to, if you're as honest as I've come to see you. The death penalty is far more about revenge than it is about prevention. So how many innocent people are you willing to execute before the price of vengeance becomes too high? Ahh that's where we come to the REAL problem now, isn't it? You see, I have often suggested a system by which the 'innocent' can truly be spared, but that idea is always referred to as 'big brother' and people throw out quotes from a 1949 novel and then more quotes about how if we're willing to give up freedom for security, then we deserve neither. Well, how about we change it up? Instead of "sacrificing" freedom for security, (which by the way it was never adequately explained how the prevalance of cameras would take away those freedoms, but whatever), instead of "sacrificing" those freedoms for security, how about we 'sacrifice' them for 'protection' from false prosecution? You see, I have done what I asked you to do. I have suggested a better system. That way, we can be as sure as humanly possible that the guy getting fried is the one who should be getting fried, but people don't like my suggestion because they feel that would take away their freedoms. Well, I've seen many criminals with an absolute disdain for human life, an absolute uncaring attitude toward anyone but themselevs. And these people do not fear jail. It generally gives them more 'street cred' to have been to jail, not even bringing up the fact that many can and do re-offend even while in jail. Those people simply need to be put down. I'm fine with calling it vengeance. After all, it's vengeance we truly seek against the terrorists. I have no misunderstandings about it. If I am in my home when an intruder comes in, I am well within my rights to kill him. If he beats me to the punch, the state should be well within its rights to do it for me. Edited to add: When I think of the death penalty, I try and put myself in the victim's shoes. If it were someone I cared about lying dead in their home, what would I do? And the simple answer is that there would be nowhere safe for the perpetrator. I would hunt him down and ensure that no one would die by his hand ever again. When it's not my loved ones who are the victims, I am perfectly fine with the state ensuring that same thing for the victims. We all know a life sentence doesn't mean a life sentence. Just ask the bomber released in Scotland.

Loki45 -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 7:18:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig What Panda said. I know its a bit of a radical idea, but how about the state not murder people in your name.....just sayin. Just as soon as you convince the criminals of the world not to prey on innocents, I will change my stance on the death penalty. No one ever said the death penalty is a flawless system. But like any system, you should improve it, not do away with it. You don't throw your computer out the window when you get a virus, you download and anti-virus and fix it.

Arpig -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 7:21:26 PM)
Very true Loki, and there is one, and only one, proven way to fix what is wrong with capital punishment, and that is to do away with it. It has no deterrent factor, it has no recourse if a mistake is made, and it is simply immoral and hypocritical. Capital punishment is nothing more than State sanctioned murder. Why is it wrong for one man to murder another, but OK for the collective to do so?

Loki45 -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 7:25:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Very true Loki, and there is one, and only one, proven way to fix what is wrong with capital punishment, and that is to do away with it. Nope, the way to fix it is to find away to ensure that innocent people aren't wrongfully convicted. Doing away with the system only benefits the criminals. All the while those left behind have to life their life knowing that the person who killed their loved ones is "still out there somewhere." Try getting to sleep at night knowing that. quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig It has no deterrent factor, Perhaps not. But it is a great way to make sure a murderer cannot reoffend. quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig apital punishment is nothing more than State sanctioned murder. Here is where we'll have to agree to disagree. You may love murderers. I do not. I'm sure the guy throwing the switch has no misgivings about his job. But he knows it's necessary or he wouldn't have taken the job. quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Why is it wrong for one man to murder another, but OK for the collective to do so? Because the collective has realized it must take drastic action when warranted. The collective also understands that a murderer must be permanently removed from society. And execution is the only way to do that.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 7:31:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 Ahh that's where we come to the REAL problem now, isn't it? You see, I have often suggested a system by which the 'innocent' can truly be spared, but that idea is always referred to as 'big brother' and people throw out quotes from a 1949 novel and then more quotes about how if we're willing to give up freedom for security, then we deserve neither. Well, how about we change it up? Instead of "sacrificing" freedom for security, (which by the way it was never adequately explained how the prevalance of cameras would take away those freedoms, but whatever), instead of "sacrificing" those freedoms for security, how about we 'sacrifice' them for 'protection' from false prosecution? You see, I have done what I asked you to do. I have suggested a better system. That way, we can be as sure as humanly possible that the guy getting fried is the one who should be getting fried, but people don't like my suggestion because they feel that would take away their freedoms. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about here. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 If I am in my home when an intruder comes in, I am well within my rights to kill him. If he beats me to the punch, the state should be well within its rights to do it for me. This argument is baseless. If someone enters your home unlawfully, you have the right to kill him to defend yourself. You do not have the right to kill him in revenge for entering your home. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 Edited to add: When I think of the death penalty, I try and put myself in the victim's shoes. If it were someone I cared about lying dead in their home, what would I do? And the simple answer is that there would be nowhere safe for the perpetrator. I would hunt him down and ensure that no one would die by his hand ever again. When it's not my loved ones who are the victims, I am perfectly fine with the state ensuring that same thing for the victims. And i would do the same, without hesitation or compunction. Believe me, I have nothing against vengeance. None whatsoever. It's a normal human reaction, as far as I'm concerned. But that's exactly why we have a justice system - to take the element of human emotion (as much as possible) out of the process of judging and punishing the offender. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 We all know a life sentence doesn't mean a life sentence. Just ask the bomber released in Scotland. We're not Scotland, so we are not bound by Scottish law. I'm sure Scotland will allow us to write our own laws regarding "life without possibility of parole."

Loki45 -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 7:38:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about here. I'm talking about the fact that if we had cameras everywhere, whether someone was actively watching them or not, it would stop alot of false prosecutions. There might still be some, perhaps. But they would go a long way in stopping many of the convictions based on false eye-witness testimony. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda This argument is baseless. If someone enters your home unlawfully, you have the right to kill him to defend yourself. You do not have the right to kill him in revenge for entering your home. Then allow me to change it up. If I come into my home and see a man in the process of, or having just finished murdering someone I care about, I am still well within my rights to kill him. I want the state to have that same right. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda And i would do the same, without hesitation or compunction. Believe me, I have nothing against vengeance. None whatsoever. It's a normal human reaction, as far as I'm concerned. But that's exactly why we have a justice system - to take the element of human emotion (as much as possible) out of the process of judging and punishing the offender. Exactly. They can get my vengeance without going overboard. Without the anguish I would feel about losing a loved one. They can calmly and cooly decide that the man who committed murder does not get to stay alive. I'm fine with that. It's one of the reasons I eventually second-guessed my desire to live somewhere other than Texas. This state has its flaws, but a man who committed cold-blooded murder in 2004 was dead by 2008. We don't let our murderers sit and languish on death row, eating up tax payer money. We do what needs to be done. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda We're not Scotland, so we are not bound by Scottish law. I'm sure Scotland will allow us to write our own laws regarding "life without possibility of parole." No, we're not Scotland. But we still have people who walk after a handful of years served on a supposedly "life sentence." That's just the most recent example I could think of off the top of my head without delving into the 'net.

DomImus -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 7:51:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Very true Loki, and there is one, and only one, proven way to fix what is wrong with capital punishment, and that is to do away with it. It has no deterrent factor, it has no recourse if a mistake is made, and it is simply immoral and hypocritical. Capital punishment is nothing more than State sanctioned murder. Why is it wrong for one man to murder another, but OK for the collective to do so? If we are going to do away with the death penalty because it has no deterrent factor then we should bulldoze all of our prisons and turn the occupants free. People continue to break the law and continue to be sent to prison. Clearly prisons have no deterrent factor and using your logic...

Loki45 -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 7:55:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus If we are going to do away with the death penalty because it has no deterrent factor then we should bulldoze all of our prisons and turn the occupants free. People continue to break the law and continue to be sent to prison. Clearly prisons have no deterrent factor and using your logic... Good point, I didn't think of that one.

Arpig -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 7:55:48 PM)
I wouldn't be entirely opposed to that idea, but in this particular case I can think of no replacement. For the death penalty however, I can think of another plan. One that gets nobody murdered in my name.

Loki45 -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 7:59:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig I wouldn't be entirely opposed to that idea, but in this particular case I can think of no replacement. For the death penalty however, I can think of another plan. On the subject of deterrent, I say fuck it. Let's go back to the old west. Everyone carries a piece. If someone wrongs you, drop 'em. Then you just have to explain to the law "It was a fair fight and we was legal!" ala Tombstone. (Minute 5:10)

Loki45 -> RE: Innocent blood is on the hands of all Texans (8/25/2009 8:01:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig I wouldn't be entirely opposed to that idea, but in this particular case I can think of no replacement. For the death penalty however, I can think of another plan. One that gets nobody murdered in my name. To enact your plan is simple. You state (as you have already many times) that you do not condone or support the death penalty. There. You're free and clear. Plan in place. That way, you can be at peace that no one is killed in your name and I'll be at peace knowing the guy who murdered two record producers is going to die soon.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875