Originally Posted by
Busyman™
First off don't talk down to me when your wording is all fucked. The imperfect humans don't necessariy "fail" to exercise the system. That makes it sound like the system already in place is perfect but the imperfect humans failed to utilize it properly.
Don't talk
down to you?
Put a bit more effort into your reading, then - my post was perfectly clear.
Now-
As to your last, it is you who inserted the tidbit about the system's being perfect, not me.
If you draw that conclusion based on my post, again: read more carefully.
My point was that
imperfect humans failed to exercise the system (however imperfect it may be) to the fullest extent.
That's an assinine statement. It always means the people fucked up and it's never the fault of the system itself. Adding the "however imperfect" part is talking in circles. If the system has great flaws then it can utilized in all it's fullness but it's still....fucked up.
Originally Posted by
Busyman™
What if there's is something wrong with the system?
What if there is?
Wouldn't it be prudent to clearly define what is wrong?
Originally Posted by
Busyman™
What if our system was "guilty until proven innocent"?
But it
isn't, you see.
Originally Posted by
Busyman™
Your statement leaves no room for improvement of the system itself. People are simply fucking up left and right trying to follow it.[/COLOR]
The system might be improved; agreed.
The question is how to go about it.
Might be improved? Is this necessary? If so why not scrap the death penalty in the meantime?
Originally Posted by
j2k4
I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?
If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.
The point remains:
People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.
Originally Posted by
Busyman™
DNA evidence has made it better. The argument is that is not perfect therefore is should be eliminated. The fact that there have been close calls would lead to the question that if it got that far, aren't there are some that make it to death undeservedly.
Prepare yourself - I am about to speak down to you again:
CLOSE CALLS DO NOT RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE WRONGLY INCARCERATED PERSON AND ARE THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN YOUR ARGUMENT.
WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED CIVILLY, AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PROPER COMPENSATION,
THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER.
So the system works then. In wrongful death, they are dead so fuck it. Oh, and that's not talking down
Originally Posted by
Busyman™
[The situation of a person being put to death leaves no room for that situation to be rectified where a person serving a life sentence can at least have the rest of his life.
Have you been paying any attention at all (at all).
That's talking down.
Originally Posted by
Busyman™
[Either way, you are talking down to the wrong person since I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty but I at least see the other side point as making sense.
If you say so, but please learn a bit more about the issue before you attempt to argue either side.
...and again.
Originally Posted by
Busyman™
[Not one innocent person should be put to death. The clock cannot be turned back
I refer you to my previous post.
Give us a comprehensive accounting of lives wrongly taken in service of the death penalty, and quit playing
"What if...".
Bookmarks