downwardspiral 0 #26 September 3, 2009 QuoteThe fact is, no justice system is perfect. Not in Texas, nor in any other state. which is reason enough to be against the death penalty.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #27 September 3, 2009 QuoteIsn't it funny how all the moral crusaders against the death penalty only show up after someone is executed? If they really cared about innocent human life, they would spend their time getting retrials and appeals for people they believe to be innocent, so that the death penalty would no longer be an issue. But instead, they just let the men die, then prance and scream about how unjust it is. The fact is, these anti-death penalty folks are just using these men to further their personal political goals, and really don't give a damn about the human being who sits in prison. You are badly misinformed. There are numerous groups out there right now advocating on behalf of death row inmates. http://www.innocenceproject.org/ http://www.fdrag.org/ Look, I understand you are a conservative and in favor of the death penalty. I don't care to argue about the merits of the death penalty with you. But you have got to get your facts straight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 340 #28 September 3, 2009 QuoteIn this specific instance? How about not killing people? It's cheaper, and functionally equivalent, to lock them up for the rest of their lives. Plus, it's somewhat reversible, should an error be discovered. I could not be more in agreement. QuoteIn general? I'm a big fan of letting people do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.Again agree completely. Unfortunately sometimes people do do things that hurt others, and I think it's one of the major responsibilities of government (acting according to the wishes of the people) to deal with them. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #29 September 3, 2009 QuoteIsn't it funny how all the moral crusaders against the death penalty only show up after someone is executed? If they really cared about innocent human life, they would spend their time getting retrials and appeals for people they believe to be innocent, so that the death penalty would no longer be an issue. But instead, they just let the men die, then prance and scream about how unjust it is. ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE and an indication of bigotry and wilful ignorance. Some 135 death row inmates have been exonerated by those who you slander in your post. www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row Sometimes, in states with a disregard for justice, they are too late or ignored.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #30 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote No problem. If, upon further investigation and evidence, he turns out to have been innocent, they can always bring him back to life. Problem solved. At least he had a chance. So what? The fact that a murder victim had no chance doesn't diminish the wrong of executing an innocent person. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 212 #31 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote No problem. If, upon further investigation and evidence, he turns out to have been innocent, they can always bring him back to life. Problem solved. At least he had a chance. So what? The fact that a murder victim had no chance doesn't diminish the wrong of executing an innocent person. Define innocent.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 25 #32 September 4, 2009 QuoteUnfortunately sometimes people do do things that hurt others, and I think it's one of the major responsibilities of government (acting according to the wishes of the people) to deal with them. Preventing people from hurting each other is almost the only morally justifiable role of government.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #33 September 4, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote No problem. If, upon further investigation and evidence, he turns out to have been innocent, they can always bring him back to life. Problem solved. At least he had a chance. So what? The fact that a murder victim had no chance doesn't diminish the wrong of executing an innocent person. Define innocent. Are you serious? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 212 #34 September 4, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote No problem. If, upon further investigation and evidence, he turns out to have been innocent, they can always bring him back to life. Problem solved. At least he had a chance. So what? The fact that a murder victim had no chance doesn't diminish the wrong of executing an innocent person. Define innocent. Are you serious? Yes.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #35 September 4, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote No problem. If, upon further investigation and evidence, he turns out to have been innocent, they can always bring him back to life. Problem solved. At least he had a chance. So what? The fact that a murder victim had no chance doesn't diminish the wrong of executing an innocent person. Define innocent. Are you serious? Yes. Define "yes". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyBoyd 0 #36 September 4, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote No problem. If, upon further investigation and evidence, he turns out to have been innocent, they can always bring him back to life. Problem solved. At least he had a chance. So what? The fact that a murder victim had no chance doesn't diminish the wrong of executing an innocent person. Define innocent. Are you serious? Yes. Legal definition: innocence = insufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Everyday, common language definition: innocence = defendant actually did not commit the crime. I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #37 September 4, 2009 Quote I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition. Justice Scalia thinks it OK.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 212 #38 September 4, 2009 Quote I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition. Then when is it ok to kill someone?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 622 #39 September 4, 2009 When you're the government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 212 #40 September 4, 2009 Quote When you're the government. Before or after being elected?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 622 #41 September 4, 2009 Well that's a huge variable there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyBoyd 0 #42 September 4, 2009 Quote Quote I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition. Justice Scalia thinks it OK. He also thinks its OK to arrest consenting adults for having sex. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Careful -- potential thread drift. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyBoyd 0 #43 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuote I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition. Then when is it ok to kill someone? I don't understand what you are getting at. Do you want me to list the circumstances under which I find it morally or legally acceptable to take a human life? I'm not sure what your point is, but I will repeat that I do not find it acceptable to execute innocent people. I would hope you don't either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 212 #44 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition. Then when is it ok to kill someone? I don't understand what you are getting at. Do you want me to list the circumstances under which I find it morally or legally acceptable to take a human life? I'm not sure what your point is, but I will repeat that I do not find it acceptable to execute innocent people. I would hope you don't either. Absolutely not. That is why I hate Planned Parenthood.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #45 September 4, 2009 QuoteIsn't it funny how all the moral crusaders against the death penalty only show up after someone is executed? If they really cared about innocent human life, they would spend their time getting retrials and appeals for people they believe to be innocent, so that the death penalty would no longer be an issue. But instead, they just let the men die, then prance and scream about how unjust it is. Your claim does not seem to match up very well with reality. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #46 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition. Then when is it ok to kill someone? I don't understand what you are getting at. Do you want me to list the circumstances under which I find it morally or legally acceptable to take a human life? I'm not sure what your point is, but I will repeat that I do not find it acceptable to execute innocent people. I would hope you don't either. Absolutely not. That is why I hate Planned Parenthood. Then by all means, start a new thread on abortion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 212 #47 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition. Then when is it ok to kill someone? I don't understand what you are getting at. Do you want me to list the circumstances under which I find it morally or legally acceptable to take a human life? I'm not sure what your point is, but I will repeat that I do not find it acceptable to execute innocent people. I would hope you don't either. Absolutely not. That is why I hate Planned Parenthood. Then by all means, start a new thread on abortion. This ties into it. Why is it NOT ok to destroy a person that has destroyed the lives of others while at the same time you can take a way life of one that has done nothing to anyone?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,146 #48 September 4, 2009 So are you saying, then, that you're OK with people being executed for crimes they're not guilty of as long as abortion is legal? Is this because any adult is guiltier (of something) than a newborn baby, or a fetus? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyBoyd 0 #49 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition. Then when is it ok to kill someone? I don't understand what you are getting at. Do you want me to list the circumstances under which I find it morally or legally acceptable to take a human life? I'm not sure what your point is, but I will repeat that I do not find it acceptable to execute innocent people. I would hope you don't either. Absolutely not. That is why I hate Planned Parenthood. Then by all means, start a new thread on abortion. This ties into it. Why is it NOT ok to destroy a person that has destroyed the lives of others while at the same time you can take a way life of one that has done nothing to anyone? Kallend's OP concerned the issue of an apparently innocent man who was executed. He didn't destroy anyone's life. You have already agreed that it is wrong to execute innocent people. Yet you continue to argue. What is the point of this post, exactly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #50 September 4, 2009 Quote Then by all means, start a new thread on abortion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This ties into it. Why is it NOT ok to destroy a person that has destroyed the lives of others while at the same time you can take a way life of one that has done nothing to anyone? Of course I understand your point regarding logical and moral inconsistency. Yes, abortion and capital punishment often cross-pollinate in debate. But one's abhorrence to abortion should not diminish abhorrence for executing a person who in reality is not guilty of a murder for which he may have been convicted. They are not mutually exclusive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
GeorgiaDon 340 #28 September 3, 2009 QuoteIn this specific instance? How about not killing people? It's cheaper, and functionally equivalent, to lock them up for the rest of their lives. Plus, it's somewhat reversible, should an error be discovered. I could not be more in agreement. QuoteIn general? I'm a big fan of letting people do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.Again agree completely. Unfortunately sometimes people do do things that hurt others, and I think it's one of the major responsibilities of government (acting according to the wishes of the people) to deal with them. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #29 September 3, 2009 QuoteIsn't it funny how all the moral crusaders against the death penalty only show up after someone is executed? If they really cared about innocent human life, they would spend their time getting retrials and appeals for people they believe to be innocent, so that the death penalty would no longer be an issue. But instead, they just let the men die, then prance and scream about how unjust it is. ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE and an indication of bigotry and wilful ignorance. Some 135 death row inmates have been exonerated by those who you slander in your post. www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row Sometimes, in states with a disregard for justice, they are too late or ignored.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #30 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote No problem. If, upon further investigation and evidence, he turns out to have been innocent, they can always bring him back to life. Problem solved. At least he had a chance. So what? The fact that a murder victim had no chance doesn't diminish the wrong of executing an innocent person. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #31 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote No problem. If, upon further investigation and evidence, he turns out to have been innocent, they can always bring him back to life. Problem solved. At least he had a chance. So what? The fact that a murder victim had no chance doesn't diminish the wrong of executing an innocent person. Define innocent.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #32 September 4, 2009 QuoteUnfortunately sometimes people do do things that hurt others, and I think it's one of the major responsibilities of government (acting according to the wishes of the people) to deal with them. Preventing people from hurting each other is almost the only morally justifiable role of government.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #33 September 4, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote No problem. If, upon further investigation and evidence, he turns out to have been innocent, they can always bring him back to life. Problem solved. At least he had a chance. So what? The fact that a murder victim had no chance doesn't diminish the wrong of executing an innocent person. Define innocent. Are you serious? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #34 September 4, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote No problem. If, upon further investigation and evidence, he turns out to have been innocent, they can always bring him back to life. Problem solved. At least he had a chance. So what? The fact that a murder victim had no chance doesn't diminish the wrong of executing an innocent person. Define innocent. Are you serious? Yes.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #35 September 4, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote No problem. If, upon further investigation and evidence, he turns out to have been innocent, they can always bring him back to life. Problem solved. At least he had a chance. So what? The fact that a murder victim had no chance doesn't diminish the wrong of executing an innocent person. Define innocent. Are you serious? Yes. Define "yes". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #36 September 4, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote No problem. If, upon further investigation and evidence, he turns out to have been innocent, they can always bring him back to life. Problem solved. At least he had a chance. So what? The fact that a murder victim had no chance doesn't diminish the wrong of executing an innocent person. Define innocent. Are you serious? Yes. Legal definition: innocence = insufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Everyday, common language definition: innocence = defendant actually did not commit the crime. I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #37 September 4, 2009 Quote I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition. Justice Scalia thinks it OK.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #38 September 4, 2009 Quote I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition. Then when is it ok to kill someone?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #39 September 4, 2009 When you're the government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #40 September 4, 2009 Quote When you're the government. Before or after being elected?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #41 September 4, 2009 Well that's a huge variable there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #42 September 4, 2009 Quote Quote I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition. Justice Scalia thinks it OK. He also thinks its OK to arrest consenting adults for having sex. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Careful -- potential thread drift. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #43 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuote I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition. Then when is it ok to kill someone? I don't understand what you are getting at. Do you want me to list the circumstances under which I find it morally or legally acceptable to take a human life? I'm not sure what your point is, but I will repeat that I do not find it acceptable to execute innocent people. I would hope you don't either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #44 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition. Then when is it ok to kill someone? I don't understand what you are getting at. Do you want me to list the circumstances under which I find it morally or legally acceptable to take a human life? I'm not sure what your point is, but I will repeat that I do not find it acceptable to execute innocent people. I would hope you don't either. Absolutely not. That is why I hate Planned Parenthood.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #45 September 4, 2009 QuoteIsn't it funny how all the moral crusaders against the death penalty only show up after someone is executed? If they really cared about innocent human life, they would spend their time getting retrials and appeals for people they believe to be innocent, so that the death penalty would no longer be an issue. But instead, they just let the men die, then prance and scream about how unjust it is. Your claim does not seem to match up very well with reality. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #46 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition. Then when is it ok to kill someone? I don't understand what you are getting at. Do you want me to list the circumstances under which I find it morally or legally acceptable to take a human life? I'm not sure what your point is, but I will repeat that I do not find it acceptable to execute innocent people. I would hope you don't either. Absolutely not. That is why I hate Planned Parenthood. Then by all means, start a new thread on abortion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #47 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition. Then when is it ok to kill someone? I don't understand what you are getting at. Do you want me to list the circumstances under which I find it morally or legally acceptable to take a human life? I'm not sure what your point is, but I will repeat that I do not find it acceptable to execute innocent people. I would hope you don't either. Absolutely not. That is why I hate Planned Parenthood. Then by all means, start a new thread on abortion. This ties into it. Why is it NOT ok to destroy a person that has destroyed the lives of others while at the same time you can take a way life of one that has done nothing to anyone?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,146 #48 September 4, 2009 So are you saying, then, that you're OK with people being executed for crimes they're not guilty of as long as abortion is legal? Is this because any adult is guiltier (of something) than a newborn baby, or a fetus? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #49 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition. Then when is it ok to kill someone? I don't understand what you are getting at. Do you want me to list the circumstances under which I find it morally or legally acceptable to take a human life? I'm not sure what your point is, but I will repeat that I do not find it acceptable to execute innocent people. I would hope you don't either. Absolutely not. That is why I hate Planned Parenthood. Then by all means, start a new thread on abortion. This ties into it. Why is it NOT ok to destroy a person that has destroyed the lives of others while at the same time you can take a way life of one that has done nothing to anyone? Kallend's OP concerned the issue of an apparently innocent man who was executed. He didn't destroy anyone's life. You have already agreed that it is wrong to execute innocent people. Yet you continue to argue. What is the point of this post, exactly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #50 September 4, 2009 Quote Then by all means, start a new thread on abortion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This ties into it. Why is it NOT ok to destroy a person that has destroyed the lives of others while at the same time you can take a way life of one that has done nothing to anyone? Of course I understand your point regarding logical and moral inconsistency. Yes, abortion and capital punishment often cross-pollinate in debate. But one's abhorrence to abortion should not diminish abhorrence for executing a person who in reality is not guilty of a murder for which he may have been convicted. They are not mutually exclusive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
