|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 25, 2011 2:59:19 GMT -6
Sooner or later an innocent will get juiced. Then we'll all be murderers.
How can pros claim they are against murder when they are willing to be murderers for their beliefs?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jan 25, 2011 8:31:49 GMT -6
Sooner or later an innocent will get juiced. Then we'll all be murderers. How can pros claim they are against murder when they are willing to be murderers for their beliefs? An innocent getting executed would not be murder since the killing would have been done legally.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 25, 2011 8:41:17 GMT -6
Sooner or later an innocent will get juiced. Then we'll all be murderers. How can pros claim they are against murder when they are willing to be murderers for their beliefs? wouldn't this scenario be a system failure more than an average pro's belief failure? I mean I get to some extent that a pro's belief would have failed because they executed the wrong person--but myself, supporting the punishment, I don't have a say at all for who gets executed and who doesn't. Then again, as long as everyone else decides to murder, the DP will still be enforced--therefore it can also be looked at that the person originally responsible for the crime which would get the DP but let an innocent take the fall is responsible for another murder.
|
|
|
Post by HANGMAN1981 on Jan 25, 2011 13:25:22 GMT -6
Sooner or later an innocent will get juiced. Then we'll all be murderers. How can pros claim they are against murder when they are willing to be murderers for their beliefs? There is an easy solution to the problem- don't convict innocent people.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 25, 2011 17:34:54 GMT -6
Sooner or later an innocent will get juiced. Then we'll all be murderers. How can pros claim they are against murder when they are willing to be murderers for their beliefs? WRONG lad. the simple fact that there have been quite a few exonerations is CONCLUSIVE proof that an innocent ever being executed is an absolute impossiblity
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Jan 25, 2011 17:38:11 GMT -6
Sooner or later an innocent will get juiced. Then we'll all be murderers. How can pros claim they are against murder when they are willing to be murderers for their beliefs? WRONG lad. the simple fact that there have been quite a few exonerations is CONCLUSIVE proof that an innocent ever being executed is an absolute impossiblity I know I am overly attached to enlightenment notions of rational deduction but could you fill in the gaps here before someone drives a combine harvester through them?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jan 25, 2011 17:42:34 GMT -6
I know I am overly attached to enlightenment notions of rational deduction but could you fill in the gaps here before someone drives a combine harvester through them? As if.
|
|
Garotte
Participant
Pro DP
Posts: 200
|
Post by Garotte on Jan 25, 2011 18:59:13 GMT -6
The execution of an innocent isn't impossible at all in the USA, although I'd say it is very implausible for it to happen in most DP states. The system should be organized very different, in order to avoid such possibilities... less worrying about the nationality of sodium thiopental and more exclusive focus on guilt/innocence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2011 19:56:19 GMT -6
WRONG lad. the simple fact that there have been quite a few exonerations is CONCLUSIVE proof that an innocent ever being executed is an absolute impossiblity WHOA! I'd say that this is an exceptionally abundant faith in the totality of the justice system to be asserting that the possibility of an innocent being executed is an absolute impossiblity. I could see you saying extremely unlikely or something but gosh, your faith is incredibly strong. I know I personally do not posses that kind of faith and certain wouldn't want to wager my life on it. LOL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2011 20:10:22 GMT -6
Sometimes I wonder if the anti's would be happier than the Pro's to see an innocent executed so they can say "I told you so".....just saying!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2011 20:14:18 GMT -6
Sooner or later an innocent will get juiced. Then we'll all be murderers. How can pros claim they are against murder when they are willing to be murderers for their beliefs? WRONG lad. the simple fact that there have been quite a few exonerations is CONCLUSIVE proof that an innocent ever being executed is an absolute impossiblity Get off the grass. An innocent has more than likely been executed before.
|
|
|
Post by Big Al on Jan 25, 2011 20:21:44 GMT -6
Sometimes I wonder if the anti's would be happier than the Pro's to see an innocent executed so they can say "I told you so".....just saying! That is sooooooo true.
|
|
|
Post by HANGMAN1981 on Jan 25, 2011 20:49:01 GMT -6
Sometimes I wonder if the anti's would be happier than the Pro's to see an innocent executed so they can say "I told you so".....just saying! I was thinking the same thing!!
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Jan 25, 2011 21:01:06 GMT -6
Now that there is DNA evidence that they can use, I would suggest that they use that so they accurately get the murderer.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Jan 26, 2011 2:32:57 GMT -6
I know I am overly attached to enlightenment notions of rational deduction but could you fill in the gaps here before someone drives a combine harvester through them?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 26, 2011 2:34:31 GMT -6
Sooner or later an innocent will get juiced. Then we'll all be murderers. How can pros claim they are against murder when they are willing to be murderers for their beliefs? An innocent getting executed would not be murder since the killing would have been done legally. You mean not murder the same way that stoning an adulteress is not murder? Maybe you don't want to go down that road again because it ended badly for you last time.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 26, 2011 3:17:52 GMT -6
Sooner or later an innocent will get juiced. Then we'll all be murderers. How can pros claim they are against murder when they are willing to be murderers for their beliefs? WRONG lad. the simple fact that there have been quite a few exonerations is CONCLUSIVE proof that an innocent ever being executed is an absolute impossiblity More like evidence that mistakes are made.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 26, 2011 3:18:38 GMT -6
Sooner or later an innocent will get juiced. Then we'll all be murderers. How can pros claim they are against murder when they are willing to be murderers for their beliefs? There is an easy solution to the problem- don't convict innocent people. Or sentence them to LWOP, and don't let them escape.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 26, 2011 3:21:35 GMT -6
Sooner or later an innocent will get juiced. Then we'll all be murderers. How can pros claim they are against murder when they are willing to be murderers for their beliefs? wouldn't this scenario be a system failure more than an average pro's belief failure? I mean I get to some extent that a pro's belief would have failed because they executed the wrong person--but myself, supporting the punishment, I don't have a say at all for who gets executed and who doesn't. No but you support a system with that risk. So you are willing to risk us all becoming murderers. That means that you're willing to risk being a murderer, and willing to risk making me into one. Don't try to wash away responsibility for the atrocities you support.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 26, 2011 3:23:38 GMT -6
I know I am overly attached to enlightenment notions of rational deduction but could you fill in the gaps here before someone drives a combine harvester through them? As if. Thank you for reading and contributing to my thread, and for referring to me in your signature this past month and a half. As a narcissist, I just love to be ignored like that.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 26, 2011 3:29:03 GMT -6
Sometimes I wonder if the anti's would be happier than the Pro's to see an innocent executed so they can say "I told you so".....just saying! Yes. Also, I secretly hope we go back to executing small children, then I can get really condemnatory on you sickbags.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 26, 2011 4:10:44 GMT -6
Now that there is DNA evidence that they can use, I would suggest that they use that so they accurately get the murderer. DNA isn't a crystal ball. Just because my DNA was at the scene doesn't prove I did the crime.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jan 26, 2011 7:52:41 GMT -6
Thank you for reading and contributing to my thread, and for referring to me in your signature this past month and a half. As a narcissist, I just love to be ignored like that. Yeah, sometimes it's hard to ignore low-hanging fruits like Dumbo. And I'll still be here when you're gone, Matthew.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jan 26, 2011 8:04:02 GMT -6
An innocent getting executed would not be murder since the killing would have been done legally. You mean not murder the same way that stoning an adulteress is not murder? Maybe you don't want to go down that road again because it ended badly for you last time. Legally stoning adulteresses is not murder. I never admitted that is was. I admitted only that it is a disgusting practice that I don't celebrate.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 26, 2011 10:15:04 GMT -6
wouldn't this scenario be a system failure more than an average pro's belief failure? I mean I get to some extent that a pro's belief would have failed because they executed the wrong person--but myself, supporting the punishment, I don't have a say at all for who gets executed and who doesn't. No but you support a system with that risk. So you are willing to risk us all becoming murderers. That means that you're willing to risk being a murderer, and willing to risk making me into one. Don't try to wash away responsibility for the atrocities you support. I'm not trying to wash away responsibility--its a simple fact. As long as people murder they will be punished and their punishment will in most cases be the DP.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 26, 2011 10:24:39 GMT -6
Thank you for reading and contributing to my thread, and for referring to me in your signature this past month and a half. As a narcissist, I just love to be ignored like that. Yeah, sometimes it's hard to ignore low-hanging fruits like Dumbo. And I'll still be here when you're gone, Matthew. Couldn't ignore me huh? You lack self-discipline.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2011 10:27:09 GMT -6
No but you support a system with that risk. So you are willing to risk us all becoming murderers. That means that you're willing to risk being a murderer, and willing to risk making me into one. Don't try to wash away responsibility for the atrocities you support. I'm not trying to wash away responsibility--its a simple fact. As long as people murder they will be punished and their punishment will in most cases be the DP. I think that should read 'rare'.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 26, 2011 10:27:22 GMT -6
You mean not murder the same way that stoning an adulteress is not murder? Maybe you don't want to go down that road again because it ended badly for you last time. Legally stoning adulteresses is not murder. I never admitted that is was. I admitted only that it is a disgusting practice that I don't celebrate. I know. I take it that you find it morally repugnant, as opposed to say, esthetically repugnant. I remember you said somewhere that esthetics don't really matter to you.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 26, 2011 10:32:13 GMT -6
No but you support a system with that risk. So you are willing to risk us all becoming murderers. That means that you're willing to risk being a murderer, and willing to risk making me into one. Don't try to wash away responsibility for the atrocities you support. I'm not trying to wash away responsibility--its a simple fact. As long as people murder they will be punished and their punishment will in most cases be the DP. The part where you try to suggest that it's all the murderer's fault, as if we could not help but execute him as a kind of reflex action, that's the part where you lame out of taking responsibility for the killing. I can only assume it's because you are secretly ashamed of it. Not surprising. Once your righteous anger fades all you did was poison someone.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jan 26, 2011 11:03:53 GMT -6
Legally stoning adulteresses is not murder. I never admitted that is was. I admitted only that it is a disgusting practice that I don't celebrate. I know. I take it that you find it morally repugnant, as opposed to say, esthetically repugnant. I remember you said somewhere that esthetics don't really matter to you. Pretty much. I should clarify that aesthetics do matter in that I think executions should be done a certain way. For example, except for military executions, I think executions should be done using some sort of device as opposed to bullets. I like a grim looking death chamber, and I think California's old chamber was pretty badass. I like to have some drama with the execution, and ideally there would be music. What I am not concerned with is trying to make executions look sanitary or humane.
|
|