RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Last edited:
Electric chair to return
- Thread starter Ragman
- Start date
You are the one who decided to characterize, that is, mischaracterize me. I find it laughable you NOW decide to refrain from answering a statement in someone else's post. Probably a first. You don't even know my position, yet you chose to mischaracterize it. This is definitely not a first .
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
That's an assertion for which you have provided no evidence - in fact, it's one you have so far utterly failed to provide evidence for - despite my requests that you do so multiple times.
All you have to do to prove my characterizations as incorrect is to unequivocally state that you do not support the death penalty ... instead, you choose to dance all around the question.
One answers questions, not statements.
As to laughable, you should really scope out ... Muttly's Follies ...
As to whether or not I know your position, that would be pretty easy for you to substantiate: all it will take is an unequivocal statement from you, one way or the other ...
Go ahead ... prove me incorrect.
Any death penalty is NOT pain free.....even the guillotine,
HowStuffWorks "Do you really stay conscious after being decapitated?"
Exactly how long a person can remain conscious after decapitation remains debatable. We know that chickens often walk around for several seconds after decapitation; the Dutch rat study mentioned earlier suggests a length of perhaps four seconds. Other studies of small mammals have found up to 29 seconds. This in itself seems a horrid length of time for such a state. Take a moment to count off four seconds while you look around the room; you'll likely find you can take in quite a bit visually and aurally during that time.
you could conceivably see the inside of that basket!....
HowStuffWorks "Do you really stay conscious after being decapitated?"
Exactly how long a person can remain conscious after decapitation remains debatable. We know that chickens often walk around for several seconds after decapitation; the Dutch rat study mentioned earlier suggests a length of perhaps four seconds. Other studies of small mammals have found up to 29 seconds. This in itself seems a horrid length of time for such a state. Take a moment to count off four seconds while you look around the room; you'll likely find you can take in quite a bit visually and aurally during that time.
you could conceivably see the inside of that basket!....
Last edited:
Well, the jury isn't the same as the prosecution. The jury can only reach a decision based on the evidence presented to them.
The burden of proof falls on the accused now?
Wow. Wow. Two Wow Moments in one thread!
Pigeon, meet Hole. You both already know False and Dichotomy, right?
In order to get someone to commit to a YES or NO answer to the question of, "Do you support the death penalty?" you must first define support. If your definition is to uphold, to back, to advocate for, the answer can be one thing, but if your definition is to undergo, to endure, to tolerate, then the answer could be just the opposite. "I can see both sides of this" is a statement without equivocation, and covers both definitions.
An answer is simply a response, which can be in response to a question or statement.
Which is why we can not say with 100% certainty of guilt.
And it's why, I think, if the accountability fell back onto the prosecution, we'd see a lot less manipulating of the evidence and crafting their case for the purposes of winning the case, and they'd be far more interested in the truth. They'd have to be really, really confident of their case if they're going to be betting their own lives on it. They'd see just how serious is is to seek the death penalty. hehe
There are, of course, some cases where it really and truly is 100%, but it's not nearly as many as some in here would like to believe. It's probably more on the order of less than one percent of the guilty verdicts in capital cases that are the result of no possibility of doubt whatsoever by anyone. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt ain't good enough, it needs to be guilty beyond an unreasonable doubt, guilty beyond any possibility whatsoever, no matter how small.
Correct, the jury isn't the same as the prosecution. If you want to hold the prosecution responsible, then it follows that the jury and judge should also be held accountable. A prosecutor can present a flawless case and the judge and jury can screw it up.
True, but the judge controls the trial and the evidence presented to the jury. The judge also has the power to "instruct" the jury prior to deliberations.
Of course it isn't an original thought, just a repeated bit of nonsense. The faulty argument is equating potential with actual: a fetus is not a human being. Or an "innocent baby", either.
If the anti choice folks had reason on their side, they wouldn't need to use blatant appeals to emotion, much less the flat out lies they employ in their efforts to impose their own religious/moral beliefs on others.
They wouldn't pay for billboards with images of innocent babies designed to evoke guilt. They wouldn't sponsor legislation requiring women to consult with a doctor before enduring a waiting period, or watch a video, or undergo an ultrasound exam - all designed to change their minds, because what woman can be trusted to know her own needs? [Would men allow such an insult to their abilities to be legislated, for any reason?!]
They wouldn't place ads in the Yellow Pages offering to "help" troubled pregnant teens, with a phone number to a pro life 'counselor', under the category "Abortion services".
They wouldn't demand the legal right to "just talk to" women entering medical facilities, even after those women have been given every opportunity to discuss their situation, and have declined.
They wouldn't operate 'clinics' in which pregnant women are counseled about their options, except for abortion, which is not permitted to be discussed.
Every tactic used by the anti choice activists is pure deception, and yet, they call themselves "Christians" - SMH.
True, but when a jury screws up a verdict, it is nearly always on the side of leniency, especially in those cases where the prosecution has presented its flawless case and the jury surprised the prosecution with a wild hair verdict. The only times a jury screws up a verdict in favor of the prosecution is when the prosecution has misled them with evidence. If the prosecution is held accountable for that crap, they wouldn't do it in the first place.
Again, if the prosecution is held accountable, they will ensure the truth rather than allow evidence that could result in a wrongful conviction in a capital case.