How many of the executed were innocent???

S

signalmankenneth

Verified User
Rick Perry holds the record on executions?!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-perry-holds-the-record-on-executions/2011/08/17/gIQAMvNwYJ_story.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics

illinois+repeals+DP.jpg


donwright.JPG


DNA.JPG


monster.jpg
 
they are all guilty and all deserve to die

:what:

the reality is, the justice system is flawed. it is not funamentally flawed, but flawed nonetheless. i was for the death penalty, but not sure if i still support it. i've learned that there are far too many mistakes that the steamroller called justice will ignore. reach your deadlines, too bad, you die. imo, the DP should be for those criminals where there is is ZERO doubt. not even .001 doubt, but zero doubt. i thought our justice system would abide by such a philosophy, but they don't. until they do, i revoke my belief in the DP as the law stands now.
 
Yurt said:
they are all guilty and all deserve to die

:what:

the reality is, the justice system is flawed. it is not funamentally flawed, but flawed nonetheless. i was for the death penalty, but not sure if i still support it. i've learned that there are far too many mistakes that the steamroller called justice will ignore. reach your deadlines, too bad, you die. imo, the DP should be for those criminals where there is is ZERO doubt. not even .001 doubt, but zero doubt. i thought our justice system would abide by such a philosophy, but they don't. until they do, i revoke my belief in the DP as the law stands now.
Click to expand...

If the death penalty is necessary to keep order, then it should be recognized that nothing is perfect. If it is not necessary to keep order, it should be abolished. Cruelty is a sign of desperation and weakness. A healthy, stable society has no need for the death penalty. A society that is stable, yet retains the death penalty, is sadistic, and just as bad.

It's also simply completely backwards and idiotic to abolish the death penalty for crimes where it would be a deterrent (economically motivated ones such a robbery), and retain it only for the insane, whom it doesn't deter. Yet that's what our society has apparently decided. It's almost as if it's desperately lashing out against the reality that there's no such thing as free will, since the second class brings that reality explicitly to the forefront. The only point of free will, after all, is to find others guilty. And how would we reduce them to human shaped objects, useful for only the pleasure that their suffering brings us, otherwise?
 
Skidmark said:
If the death penalty is necessary to keep order, then it should be recognized that nothing is perfect. If it is not necessary to keep order, it should be abolished. Cruelty is a sign of desperation and weakness. A healthy, stable society has no need for the death penalty. A society that is stable, yet retains the death penalty, is sadistic, and just as bad.

It's also simply completely backwards and idiotic to abolish the death penalty for crimes where it would be a deterrent (economically motivated ones such a robbery), and retain it only for the insane, whom it doesn't deter. Yet that's what our society has apparently decided. It's almost as if it's desperately lashing out against the reality that there's no such thing as free will, since the second class brings that reality explicitly to the forefront. The only point of free will, after all, is to find others guilty. And how would we reduce them to human shaped objects, useful for only the pleasure that their suffering brings us, otherwise?
Click to expand...

There should be 100% conclusive evidence or admittance of guilt. A Jeffrey Dahmer should have been double tapped five minutes after arrest. Same for Manson, Bundy etc....

That said, I disagree with your above statement that if it isn't necessary to keep order it should be eliminated. I think it is every bit, if not more, inhumane to keep someone locked in a cage with no hope of ever getting out. If it were me, I would much prefer they simply end my existence than toss me in a cage. If a dog is sick beyond aid, we put him down to help prevent further suffering. We do so because it is humane.
 
Superfreak said:
There should be 100% conclusive evidence or admittance of guilt. A Jeffrey Dahmer should have been double tapped five minutes after arrest. Same for Manson, Bundy etc....

That said, I disagree with your above statement that if it isn't necessary to keep order it should be eliminated. I think it is every bit, if not more, inhumane to keep someone locked in a cage with no hope of ever getting out. If it were me, I would much prefer they simply end my existence than toss me in a cage. If a dog is sick beyond aid, we put him down to help prevent further suffering. We do so because it is humane.
Click to expand...

So, if you were inocent, yet facing eventual execution, would you rather be put out of your misery now, or at least have the chance that exhonerating evidence may yet come forth?
 
We should get rid of the death penalty. Instead we should put them in prison until they die there. It serves the same purpose to society and allows somebody who may later be found innocent (it's happened in cases even when the convicted had "confessed") they can actually have a chance to leave the prison. We should always err on the side of life, and Dahmer wouldn't be serial killing anybody else while he was in prison.
 
signalmankenneth said:
Rick Perry holds the record on executions?!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-perry-holds-the-record-on-executions/2011/08/17/gIQAMvNwYJ_story.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics
Click to expand...


As an example, the lobbyist cited Democrat Jim Mattox, known in his day as the “junkyard dog” of Texas politics. When Mattox was Texas attorney general, he routinely traveled to the state prison to attend executions. Similarly, former Democratic Gov. Mark White ran a reelection campaign ad where he strolled through a portrait gallery of Texans. All had been executed while he was in office.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61887.html#ixzz1Vxu7BiEE
 
Return of Dune said:
OK, I read it again and still have the same question. Perhaps you are not conveying your message as clearly as you think.
Click to expand...

There should be 100% conclusive evidence or admittance of guilt. A Jeffrey Dahmer should have been double tapped five minutes after arrest. Same for Manson, Bundy etc....

If that is too straightforward for you....

If I were innocent, then they would not have either 100% conclusive evidence or an admittance of guilt... one of which would be necessary for me to support the death penalty.

Do let me know if I need to dumb it down further in order for you to comprehend it.
 
Is it true that as president, Rick Perry has promised to save taxpayers money by personally executing all convicted Hispanics and Blacks and forwarding a bill for the bullet to the dead convicts family?



Rick_Perry_gun_range.jpg
 
Superfreak said:
There should be 100% conclusive evidence or admittance of guilt. A Jeffrey Dahmer should have been double tapped five minutes after arrest. Same for Manson, Bundy etc....

If that is too straightforward for you....

If I were innocent, then they would not have either 100% conclusive evidence or an admittance of guilt... one of which would be necessary for me to support the death penalty.

Do let me know if I need to dumb it down further in order for you to comprehend it.
Click to expand...

there are a few problems with this premise, first of which is the fault of us, the american people. we've lost sight of the founders vision concerning our judicial system and how it's supposed to be utilized. we generally don't presume innocence before guilty beyond a reasonable doubt anymore. furthermore, we've taken a very vindictive turn in how we judge sentencing anymore by utilizing the death penalty when we probably shouldn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top