Electric chair to return

muttly · May 25, 2014

Turtle said:
Far less than killing him 20 years earlier would have done.

I'm not a big fan of most absolutes in society, like "no death penalty under any circumstances," because there are situations where society demands the death penalty. However, 100 percent has been shown to be faulty, as many a convict who was 100 percent, no doubt about it guilty, was later exonerated. If someone is to be executed, they have to really deserve it. And I mean really, really deserve it, with no mistakes, not even one.

One way to keep capital punishment and dramatically reduce or even eliminate mistakes would be to hold the prosecution equally liable for incorrect verdicts of the death penalty. If someone is executed and later exonerated of the crime, then the prosecution should share the same exact fate which they incorrectly fought to impose on the innocent. If the actual prosecutor involved is no longer living, that's OK, as whoever holds that position currently can take his place. I seriously doubt prosecutors would be chomping at the bit to seek the death penalty nearly as often as they do now.

Right, and there would be no reason to put them in solitary confinement and 'throw away the key' , because they may be innocent. If there is a video of the murder and also had witnesses,wouldn't that be 100 percent guilty?

Ragman · May 25, 2014

muttly said:
If there is a video of the murder and also had witnesses,wouldn't that be 100 percent guilty?

It has nothing to do with him being 100% guilty. It has to do with the next guy being sentenced under the same laws that isn't.

Turtle · May 25, 2014

LDB said:
And there's all the blah blah from the defectives. And they're still just as wrong. Murdering innocent life is not the same as taking guilty life and never will be. I don't expect to change any defective minds. It's their privilege to be wrong.

Murder - the unlawful killing of another human being

Fetus - not a human being

layoutshooter · May 25, 2014

Turtle said:
Applying the logic of abortion to that of eagle eggs is flawed logic. If you do that, then using the same logic, all people who eat living things or things that used to be living are guilty of killing living things. Even vegetarians and vegans are guilty of this. Don't get me started on the rampant, barbaric killing of innocent ducks and fish.

No, you said those who are "pro killing of life" were the ones incorrectly using the terms "that accurately depict the killing that is taking place." Yet that's incorrect, as they do use the terms correctly. They just aren't the terms you prefer, nor are they the terms which are routinely used incorrectly by those who want to impose their own personal views onto others.

So if someone wants an abortion at 6 weeks, you think they should be shown a video of a partial-birth abortion, in order for them to know the entire truth about something they don't even want? Instead of wanting someone to know the entire truth, it would seem you have an ulterior motive in that.

The reason there is a problem is that outlawing the practice is nothing more than imposing a certain set of morals onto others It's just like gun control where laws are enacted and then the creep begins to enact more and more restrictive laws.

No, the killing of a medically viable human being, is murder. So is leaving a baby who survives the attempt to kill it, and is born alive, and left to die, has been murdered. I did not say outlaw abortion. I believe that if a person wants an abortion, that should see a video of the proceedure that they are going to have. Not one of an earlier or later one. Same stage, same method.

You can couch it all you want, one has to kill to abort, there is no other correct term. I mean, what other way, besides killing, is there to abort the products of conception? The products of conception are alive, and after the abortion, they are no longer alive. Therefore, a killing took place. Therefore is one is for abortion, on supports that particular type of killing. Pro death.

ALL choices, involving life, are moral choices, from the eating of a living plant to the killing of a medically viable person.

Also, in case you don't know this, I don't kill "innocent" ducks or fish. ALL are guilty if urinating and deficating in our lakes, rivers, straights, creeks, sloughs, cricks, burns, etc etc., without making any attempt to purify the water that they foul. Most drake mallards should be killed for the way they treat females. And then there is kudzu, talk about a plant that is guilty of murder.

Besides, just as I am not allowed to force MY morals on others, the same goes for those who would impose theirs on ME. After all, fair is fair.

layoutshooter · May 25, 2014

Turtle said:
Murder - the unlawful killing of another human being

Fetus - not a human being

One that is capable of living outside of the womb is a human being. There are many books that have been written by viable human beings that survived an attempt to kill them.

RLENT · May 25, 2014

Cue sanctimonious emotional drama, sans much in the way of actual logic and rationality:

LDB said:
And there's all the blah blah from the defectives. And they're still just as wrong. Murdering innocent life is not the same as taking guilty life and never will be. I don't expect to change any defective minds. It's their privilege to be wrong.

RLENT · May 25, 2014

layoutshooter said:
No, the killing of a medically viable human being, is murder. So is leaving a baby who survives the attempt to kill it, and is born alive, and left to die, has been murdered. I did not say outlaw abortion. I believe that if a person wants an abortion, that should see a video of the proceedure that they are going to have. Not one of an earlier or later one. Same stage, same method.

Since you apparently don't allow for it to be optional ... rather than mandatory or compulsory we get:

An apparently authoritarian desire to enforce a certain reality (one's own evidently) on another human being ...

Welcome to the psycho realm of punishment as "therapy" or "education" ...

muttly · May 25, 2014

Ragman said:
It has nothing to do with him being 100% guilty. It has to do with the next guy being sentenced under the same laws that isn't.

If he wasn't 100 percent guilty then he wouldn't get the death penalty,

Turtle · May 25, 2014

muttly said:
Right, and there would be no reason to put them in solitary confinement and 'throw away the key' , because they may be innocent.

I can think of several reasons. The obvious one would be that putting them in solitary confinement is preferable to killing them, on the off chance they might be innocent.

If there is a video of the murder and also had witnesses,wouldn't that be 100 percent guilty?

Not necessarily. And the NFL has proven over and over again, and MLB has only reinforced, video evidence can be wrongly interpreted. And we all know that witness testimony is often the least accurate of all evidence. There have been cases where video and witness testimony sure seemed a lock for 100% guilty, and later DNA evidence proved he didn't do it. Ever been told that somewhere out there you have a virtual twin? I'd certainly hate to be convicted of a murder committed by my virtual twin. Someone needs to commit the crime in front of several witnesses, and be apprehended immediately after it happens, and then confess repeatedly as to not only doing it, but also the motive. At that point you start to get closer to that "no doubt whatsoever" point. But as long as there exists corruption within the courts, and errors within the system, a sentence of death is just a little too final.

muttly · May 25, 2014

Ragman said:
I think everybody is missing the point of our position.

It's not that we are against the death penalty for the 100% proven guilty, We just can not be sure everybody that receives that sentence is in fact 100% proven guilty.

I have posted many stories of death row inmates being set free because they didn't do it.

Regarding those cases where they were set free because 'they didn't do it'. It might be true in some cases. It also might be true in many of those cases where the convicted person STILL COMMITTED THE CRIME, but was overturned for a variety of reasons.

scottm4211 · May 25, 2014

I'm sure many here also think fingerprint analysis is 100% accurate.

layoutshooter · May 25, 2014

" Ever been told that somewhere out there you have a virtual twin?"

Nope, I never have been and I don't have a twin, virtual or otherwise. Two younger brothers, that's it.

Ragman · May 25, 2014

muttly said:
If he wasn't 100 percent guilty then he wouldn't get the death penalty,

Executed But Possibly Innocent | Death Penalty Information Center

muttly · May 25, 2014

Turtle said:
I can think of several reasons. The obvious one would be that putting them in solitary confinement is preferable to killing them, on the off chance they might be innocent.

Not necessarily. And the NFL has proven over and over again, and MLB has only reinforced, video evidence can be wrongly interpreted. And we all know that witness testimony is often the least accurate of all evidence. There have been cases where video and witness testimony sure seemed a lock for 100% guilty, and later DNA evidence proved he didn't do it. Ever been told that somewhere out there you have a virtual twin? I'd certainly hate to be convicted of a murder committed by my virtual twin. Someone needs to commit the crime in front of several witnesses, and be apprehended immediately after it happens, and then confess repeatedly as to not only doing it, but also the motive. At that point you start to get closer to that "no doubt whatsoever" point. But as long as there exists corruption within the courts, and errors within the system, a sentence of death is just a little too final.

Yes it preferable to murder, but a little confused by Ragman's argument that he is ok with having them in solitary confinement and throw away the key. His whole argument is that an innocent man might be put to death, however is ok with putting a person in a vegetative state in some dark cell for 20 years. He might be innocent as well.

layoutshooter · May 25, 2014

And each and every person, killed by a convict who was allowed to kill again, is equally as dead, and, at least, as innocent.

Ragman · May 25, 2014

muttly said:
If he wasn't 100 percent guilty then he wouldn't get the death penalty,

The Innocence Project - The Innocent and the Death Penalty

muttly · May 25, 2014

Ragman said:
Executed But Possibly Innocent | Death Penalty Information Center

These cases aren't examples of 100 percent guilty. They also aren't examples, at least in maybe some of them, of an innocent person being executed.

scottm4211 · May 25, 2014

muttly said:
If he wasn't 100 percent guilty then he wouldn't get the death penalty,

Wow.......

Ragman · May 25, 2014

muttly said:
These cases aren't examples of 100 percent guilty. They also aren't examples, at least in maybe some of them, of an innocent person being executed.

Exactly my point.

We can't be sure.