How many of the executed were innocent???

IMO, we should never impose a death penalty.


If killing is wrong, how can society advocate killing?
 
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...

Your premise is flawed simply because perfect proof (100% conclusive) is impossible for humans to achieve. That is why the death penalty should not exist.

As to the dumbing down thing; nah your answer is plenty dumb already.
 
Return of Dune said:
Your premise is flawed simply because perfect proof (100% conclusive) is impossible for humans to achieve. That is why the death penalty should not exist.

As to the dumbing down thing; nah your answer is plenty dumb already.
Click to expand...

perfect proof is possible with the new technology of today. say a security cam video of the brutal rape and murder was shown, I can easily see the death penalty being applied without fear of executing the wrong person.
 
Supposedly all convictions are "beyond a reasonable doubt", yet innocent people have been killed by state executioners.


How can society say they are punishing someone for killing by killing them?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
perfect proof is possible with the new technology of today. say a security cam video of the brutal rape and murder was shown, I can easily see the death penalty being applied without fear of executing the wrong person.
Click to expand...

I can see lots of problems with your scenario.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you have heard of false confessions, right? co-erced confessions?
Click to expand...

let me clarify, a true confession. which is what SF was talking about.

also, video evidence can be 100% proof. eye witnesses can be 100% proof. this post is 100% proof that someone made a post using Yurt's username.

it is simply not true that we cannot have 100% proof. then again, dune thinks you have to "pass" iq tests.
 
Yurt said:
let me clarify, a true confession. which is what SF was talking about.

also, video evidence can be 100% proof. eye witnesses can be 100% proof. this post is 100% proof that someone made a post using Yurt's username.

it is simply not true that we cannot have 100% proof. then again, dune thinks you have to "pass" iq tests.
Click to expand...


Which you clearly didn't do, since you can't even recognise humor. Good memory though.
 
Yurt said:
let me clarify, a true confession. which is what SF was talking about.

also, video evidence can be 100% proof. eye witnesses can be 100% proof. this post is 100% proof that someone made a post using Yurt's username.

it is simply not true that we cannot have 100% proof. then again, dune thinks you have to "pass" iq tests.
Click to expand...


You just don't get it, do you? How the fuck would you know which confessions are "true"?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
certainly willing to listen.
Click to expand...


The problem later overturned most often is eyewitness mis-identification. Video tape is still eye-witness, yet subject to tampering, in addition to mis-identification.

For years I had LONG hair. At least 1000 people asked me if I was the lead singer of Journey. Too many people look similar out of the 7 billion alive now, for this to be considered perfect.

A scenario is even possible where one could frame another, using disquise. Sorry, not perfect enough.

There simply is no perfect proof, period.
 
Return of Dune said:
Which you clearly didn't do, since you can't even recognise humor. Good memory though.
Click to expand...

nice try liar...when i called you on it, you changed your future statements to getting a certain iq score.

you can tell if confessions are true dune. for example:

1. states guilt
2. shows where body is etc....

you really aren't that bright
 
SmarterThanYou said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which does not present a single problem with my premise. It shows problems with the existing system.
 
Return of Dune said:
The problem later overturned most often is eyewitness mis-identification. Video tape is still eye-witness, yet subject to tampering, in addition to mis-identification.

For years I had LONG hair. At least 1000 people asked me if I was the lead singer of Journey. Too many people look similar out of the 7 billion alive now, for this to be considered perfect.

A scenario is even possible where one could frame another, using disquise. Sorry, not perfect enough.

There simply is no perfect proof, period.
Click to expand...

I disagree. mind you, if there was grainy video or it looked like it had been doctored in any way, i'd lean towards erring on the side of caution and decline the death penalty. However, if the video is crystal clear and smooth running, I got no problem with a death sentence.
 
Yurt said:
nice try liar...when i called you on it, you changed your future statements to getting a certain iq score.

you can tell if confessions are true dune. for example:

1. states guilt
2. shows where body is etc....


you really aren't that bright
Click to expand...


WTF are you talking about? Passing an IQ test is a joke, and only someone who failed his wouldn't get it.
Again, there is no perfect proof. Someone could readily have details of a crime without having commited the crime. Stop being a retard.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I disagree. mind you, if there was grainy video or it looked like it had been doctored in any way, i'd lean towards erring on the side of caution and decline the death penalty. However, if the video is crystal clear and smooth running, I got no problem with a death sentence.
Click to expand...

You can prove the video hasn't been doctored how?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top