The Death Sentance

[j2k4]

I think the death sentence is fine, I mean hell the world is overpopulated. Whoever voted against the death sentence is a damn liberal democrat.

What a load of bollox, typical right wing republican bullshit!

In 2001 Illinois suspended the death penalty after the number of death row inmates released after DNA evidence proved their innocence, was larger than the number executed.

"We have now freed more people than we have put to death under our system -- 13 people have been exonerated and 12 have been put to death," Illinois Gov. George Ryan.

This has been repeated all over the US.

Hmmm.

First of all, the fact 18 (not 13) people have been exonerated since 1987 (before DNA was a viable tool for determining guilt or innocence) proves only that the system works...innocent people were not executed.

12 people have been executed since 1976, and nary a question of the propriety of their executions (vis a vis their guilt) has been raised.

Saying "All over the US" is taking just a wee bit of a rhetorical liberty, given the death penalty isn't applied universally.

You should also note Ryan left office in January of '03, commuting all pending death sentences as he did.

He was replaced by Rod Blagojevich.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Hmmm.

First of all, the fact 18 (not 13) people have been exonerated since 1987 (before DNA was a viable tool for determining guilt or innocence) proves only that the system works...innocent people were not executed.

That should really be " ...some innocent people were not executed".

Unless your contention is that innocent people are never murdered by the state. Which I think would be a bold statement indeed.

[import_fighter]

yes for the right crime.

[j2k4]

Hmmm.

First of all, the fact 18 (not 13) people have been exonerated since 1987 (before DNA was a viable tool for determining guilt or innocence) proves only that the system works...innocent people were not executed.

That should really be " ...some innocent people were not executed".

Unless your contention is that innocent people are never murdered by the state. Which I think would be a bold statement indeed.

Which I take to mean you think the state is willy-nilly taking innocent lives.

How often do you think this happens, try to answer without trotting out that useless old saw that goes "even once is once too many".

What if we discovered that a murderer was wrongly released, only to subsequently commit a double-homocide?

We could play semantic games all day and night, but frankly, I'd rather see someone wrongly detained for several years than another wrongly released for over-crowding or the like, only to murder again and again, which example can surely be demonstrated more often than an innocent being executed...

[Ava Estelle]

Here we go, good old j2-kill 'em all and let god sort them out-k4!

The figure for the whole of the US is well over 100 released, and this is only since DNA evidence was available. Seeing as the US, over the years, has executed 1,000's, it doesn't take too much intelligence to see that many would have been innocent. At least with life imprisonment they would have had a chance of release.

double-homocide

I didn't realise there were specific laws in the US against the killing of homosexuals.

[j2k4]

double-homocide

I didn't realise there were specific laws in the US against the killing of homosexuals.

Look in your Foreigners Guide to Mis-begotten Mis-perceptions about the United States under the heading of "Hate Crimes", doofus.


Apologies for the mis-spelling.

I'm sure you can count them on one hand, by now.

[Chip Monk]

That should really be " ...some innocent people were not executed".

Unless your contention is that innocent people are never murdered by the state. Which I think would be a bold statement indeed.

Which I take to mean you think the state is willy-nilly taking innocent lives.

How often do you think this happens, try to answer without trotting out that useless old saw that goes "even once is once too many".

What if we discovered that a murderer was wrongly released, only to subsequently commit a double-homocide?

We could play semantic games all day and night, but frankly, I'd rather see someone wrongly detained for several years than another wrongly released for over-crowding or the like, only to murder again and again, which example can surely be demonstrated more often than an innocent being executed...

First, let's make this absolutely clear, if I want to answer ""even once is once too many"." then that is what I'll do, if for no other reason because it's true. Or do you have an actual figure for acceptable casualties.

Secondly, murderers do get released and murder again and innocent people are killed by the State. Both happen, however we are in a position to stop one of them overnight, by the State simply stopping killing people.

"We could play semantic games all day and night, but frankly, I'd rather see someone wrongly detained for several years than another wrongly released for over-crowding or the like, only to murder again and again"

So would I, but that's not what we're talking about, now is it.

[j2k4]

Which I take to mean you think the state is willy-nilly taking innocent lives.

How often do you think this happens, try to answer without trotting out that useless old saw that goes "even once is once too many".

What if we discovered that a murderer was wrongly released, only to subsequently commit a double-homocide?

We could play semantic games all day and night, but frankly, I'd rather see someone wrongly detained for several years than another wrongly released for over-crowding or the like, only to murder again and again, which example can surely be demonstrated more often than an innocent being executed...

First, let's make this absolutely clear, if I want to answer ""even once is once too many"." then that is what I'll do, if for no other reason because it's true. Or do you have an actual figure for acceptable casualties.

Secondly, murderers do get released and murder again and innocent people are killed by the State. Both happen, however we are in a position to stop one of them overnight, by the State simply stopping killing people.

"We could play semantic games all day and night, but frankly, I'd rather see someone wrongly detained for several years than another wrongly released for over-crowding or the like, only to murder again and again"

So would I, but that's not what we're talking about, now is it.

It is what I was talking about.

As with so many other things, we've been through all of this before.

I really don't have a thing against capital punishment, except that it should be cheaper; perhaps as an energy-saving measure, we could forego the cost of the electricity it takes to fry them, as well as the cost of the fossil-fuel required to make the electricity, and do away with them by giving the biggest, baddest S.O.B. on death row an axe to do the job, and give the smallest, weakest one a mop to clean up afterward.

If someone can manage to keep murderers in for life (that is to say, until they die), with no exceptions, I'd go for that, too.

Add a caveat stating a positive DNA test/match marks the absolute end of the appeals process while they're at it.

[Mr JP Fugley]

It is what I was talking about.

Since when, that post was totally out of the blue and changed the argument. The fact that you tried to do it in a surreptitious way was, at best, disingenuous.

If someone can manage to keep murderers in for life (that is to say, until they die), with no exceptions, I'd go for that, too.

I have no problem with life meaning life.

Add a caveat stating a positive DNA test/match marks the absolute end of the appeals process while they're at it.

Could do, coz forensic tests are never wrong.

I really hate posting that way.

[j2k4]

Since when, that post was totally out of the blue and changed the argument. The fact that you tried to do it in a surreptitious way was, at best, disingenuous.

Pardon, what was the (mis-spelled) title of this thread again?