Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why is it any better to lock someone up for 50 years if they are innocent, than to execute them after 10-20? You probably operate under the assumption that it gives time to eventually exonerate them, but right now we have plenty of people doing life without parole, and unfortunately some of them may be innocent. What is the difference between them dying of old age or by a needle?
I think I would prefer the needle to anything else that might get stuck in me there.
That's the other thing to consider. for a person who has been in jail before, has a long record, how much of a punishment is it to keep them there even longer?
For the rest of us, the concept of incarceration is frightening, for some of these guys, it's called "Tuesday"
The point is no matter how careful we are, we have no way of knowing at the time of execution if exonerating evidence will emerge later, so the only way to avoid killing an innocent person is to allow depraved mass murderers to also escape the death penalty. So as a practical matter, you are saying no one should be executed.You are also talking about depraved mass murderers since you claim it is not possible for the system to distinguish between them.Are you saying that the science used to determine the DNA isn't sure enough? Are you saying that the science of Global Warming isn't sure enough?If every executed person was as unquestionably guilty as Roof, I would say fry them all. Unfortunately, we have killed too many innocent people, and it's too late to find that out after they are dead. It's cheaper to just lock them up forever, and we don't take the chance of more guilty people going free because we killed an innocent person for their crime.
No dumb ass. I'm talking about executing innocent people.
I'm saying that there have been cases where we haven't been able to distinguish between innocent and guilty people. Either way. I wasn't talking about accuracy of DNA or Global Climate Change.
To carry your argument further, since we know that innocent people are sometimes sent to prison, sometimes for long periods, and since no matter how careful we are, at the time of sentencing, we have no way of knowing if exonerating evidence will later emerge, the only way to avoid sending innocent people to prison is to send no one to prison.
Policy makers attempt most often to apply the philosophy that they should seek the greatest good for the greatest number because it is often impossible or impractical to look for policies that benefit everyone, so if you believe, as the majority of voters in some states do, that the death penalty improves public safety, then the actual number of innocent people who are executed has to be weighed against that perceived benefit, and most people in those states believe the death penalty does provide the greatest good for the greatest number.
I suspect if the victims were a bunch of old white men, there would be a lot more sympathy for the piece of shit.
Really the piece of shit should've been executed about a year ago, someone should've taken him out back of the police station and shot him in the head with a 22. That would be real justice And it would not cost anything.
What really is the purpose of giving this guy a slap on the wrist... which is what that is by not giving him the death penalty.
He serves no purpose to anybody... just a reminder.
No one on the planet is going to miss having him around…
I'd lock him up for the rest of his life
Some crimes don't deserve three hots and a cot.
Eye for an eye justice is best saved for Sharia Law
I'm only anti-death penalty because I know for a fact there are many not guilty people on death row, and the DP is applied inequitably between races. However, when there's absolutely no doubt someone committed an act of terror, what's the argument against it? Even under traditional (Western European, liberal) ethics, self defense is a justification.The anti-death penalty nutters are mysteriously quiet on the Dylann roof trial…
lol In other words, you don't like what I posted but you don't know why. Sometimes you have to go beyond what you feel and actually try to think issues through.The point is no matter how careful we are, we have no way of knowing at the time of execution if exonerating evidence will emerge later, so the only way to avoid killing an innocent person is to allow depraved mass murderers to also escape the death penalty. So as a practical matter, you are saying no one should be executed.You are also talking about depraved mass murderers since you claim it is not possible for the system to distinguish between them.Are you saying that the science used to determine the DNA isn't sure enough? Are you saying that the science of Global Warming isn't sure enough?
No dumb ass. I'm talking about executing innocent people.
I'm saying that there have been cases where we haven't been able to distinguish between innocent and guilty people. Either way. I wasn't talking about accuracy of DNA or Global Climate Change.
To carry your argument further, since we know that innocent people are sometimes sent to prison, sometimes for long periods, and since no matter how careful we are, at the time of sentencing, we have no way of knowing if exonerating evidence will later emerge, the only way to avoid sending innocent people to prison is to send no one to prison.
Policy makers attempt most often to apply the philosophy that they should seek the greatest good for the greatest number because it is often impossible or impractical to look for policies that benefit everyone, so if you believe, as the majority of voters in some states do, that the death penalty improves public safety, then the actual number of innocent people who are executed has to be weighed against that perceived benefit, and most people in those states believe the death penalty does provide the greatest good for the greatest number.
You correctly stated my belief about capitol punishment, and then spouted the dumbest crap I have ever heard. That is one of the most identifying features with the right. You make crap up and claim that is what liberals believe.
Taking him out back of the police station shooting Him in the head with a 22 Lr is cheap justice… Much better than the clown show that's going on now.I suspect if the victims were a bunch of old white men, there would be a lot more sympathy for the piece of shit.
Really the piece of shit should've been executed about a year ago, someone should've taken him out back of the police station and shot him in the head with a 22. That would be real justice And it would not cost anything.
What really is the purpose of giving this guy a slap on the wrist... which is what that is by not giving him the death penalty.
He serves no purpose to anybody... just a reminder.
No one on the planet is going to miss having him around…
So you think murder instead of a fair trial is the way we should conduct our business as a country. Typical right winger.
lol In other words, you don't like what I posted but you don't know why. Sometimes you have to go beyond what you feel and actually try to think issues through.The point is no matter how careful we are, we have no way of knowing at the time of execution if exonerating evidence will emerge later, so the only way to avoid killing an innocent person is to allow depraved mass murderers to also escape the death penalty. So as a practical matter, you are saying no one should be executed.You are also talking about depraved mass murderers since you claim it is not possible for the system to distinguish between them.No dumb ass. I'm talking about executing innocent people.
I'm saying that there have been cases where we haven't been able to distinguish between innocent and guilty people. Either way. I wasn't talking about accuracy of DNA or Global Climate Change.
To carry your argument further, since we know that innocent people are sometimes sent to prison, sometimes for long periods, and since no matter how careful we are, at the time of sentencing, we have no way of knowing if exonerating evidence will later emerge, the only way to avoid sending innocent people to prison is to send no one to prison.
Policy makers attempt most often to apply the philosophy that they should seek the greatest good for the greatest number because it is often impossible or impractical to look for policies that benefit everyone, so if you believe, as the majority of voters in some states do, that the death penalty improves public safety, then the actual number of innocent people who are executed has to be weighed against that perceived benefit, and most people in those states believe the death penalty does provide the greatest good for the greatest number.
You correctly stated my belief about capitol punishment, and then spouted the dumbest crap I have ever heard. That is one of the most identifying features with the right. You make crap up and claim that is what liberals believe.
I just pointed out that you are responding to the issue emotionally and haven't thought it out, and now you are responding to my post emotionally without having thought it out.lol In other words, you don't like what I posted but you don't know why. Sometimes you have to go beyond what you feel and actually try to think issues through.The point is no matter how careful we are, we have no way of knowing at the time of execution if exonerating evidence will emerge later, so the only way to avoid killing an innocent person is to allow depraved mass murderers to also escape the death penalty. So as a practical matter, you are saying no one should be executed.You are also talking about depraved mass murderers since you claim it is not possible for the system to distinguish between them.
I'm saying that there have been cases where we haven't been able to distinguish between innocent and guilty people. Either way. I wasn't talking about accuracy of DNA or Global Climate Change.
To carry your argument further, since we know that innocent people are sometimes sent to prison, sometimes for long periods, and since no matter how careful we are, at the time of sentencing, we have no way of knowing if exonerating evidence will later emerge, the only way to avoid sending innocent people to prison is to send no one to prison.
Policy makers attempt most often to apply the philosophy that they should seek the greatest good for the greatest number because it is often impossible or impractical to look for policies that benefit everyone, so if you believe, as the majority of voters in some states do, that the death penalty improves public safety, then the actual number of innocent people who are executed has to be weighed against that perceived benefit, and most people in those states believe the death penalty does provide the greatest good for the greatest number.
You correctly stated my belief about capitol punishment, and then spouted the dumbest crap I have ever heard. That is one of the most identifying features with the right. You make crap up and claim that is what liberals believe.
I know exactly why. The crap you posted, and claimed I believe is bullshit. Making up shit doesn't make it true. I am against the death penalty for the reasons I gave. Quit lying.
Liberals want to give a criminal chance after chance until their rap sheet are miles long. Liberals feel that someday they(liberals) might end up in jail so don't want a fate of death to be put on them(look at Ted Kennedy and his murder of Mary Joe), so they pass laws to prevent thugs like them from having the chance of execution. But then those same people believe that innocent babies , in or out of the womb should be killed without even having a chance to prove themselves. Lucifer is laughing at all of you.The point is no matter how careful we are, we have no way of knowing at the time of execution if exonerating evidence will emerge later, so the only way to avoid killing an innocent person is to allow depraved mass murderers to also escape the death penalty. So as a practical matter, you are saying no one should be executed.You are also talking about depraved mass murderers since you claim it is not possible for the system to distinguish between them.Are you saying that the science used to determine the DNA isn't sure enough? Are you saying that the science of Global Warming isn't sure enough?
No dumb ass. I'm talking about executing innocent people.
I'm saying that there have been cases where we haven't been able to distinguish between innocent and guilty people. Either way. I wasn't talking about accuracy of DNA or Global Climate Change.
To carry your argument further, since we know that innocent people are sometimes sent to prison, sometimes for long periods, and since no matter how careful we are, at the time of sentencing, we have no way of knowing if exonerating evidence will later emerge, the only way to avoid sending innocent people to prison is to send no one to prison.
Policy makers attempt most often to apply the philosophy that they should seek the greatest good for the greatest number because it is often impossible or impractical to look for policies that benefit everyone, so if you believe, as the majority of voters in some states do, that the death penalty improves public safety, then the actual number of innocent people who are executed has to be weighed against that perceived benefit, and most people in those states believe the death penalty does provide the greatest good for the greatest number.
You correctly stated my belief about capitol punishment, and then spouted the dumbest crap I have ever heard. That is one of the most identifying features with the right. You make crap up and claim that is what liberals believe.
Opening page - Dedication
"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
We have 2.5 million people in jail. Most in the world and five times what we had thirty years agoLiberals want to give a criminal chance after chance until their rap sheet are miles long. Liberals feel that someday they(liberals) might end up in jail so don't want a fate of death to be put on them(look at Ted Kennedy and his murder of Mary Joe), so they pass laws to prevent thugs like them from having the chance of execution. But then those same people believe that innocent babies , in or out of the womb should be killed without even having a chance to prove themselves. Lucifer is laughing at all of you.The point is no matter how careful we are, we have no way of knowing at the time of execution if exonerating evidence will emerge later, so the only way to avoid killing an innocent person is to allow depraved mass murderers to also escape the death penalty. So as a practical matter, you are saying no one should be executed.You are also talking about depraved mass murderers since you claim it is not possible for the system to distinguish between them.No dumb ass. I'm talking about executing innocent people.
I'm saying that there have been cases where we haven't been able to distinguish between innocent and guilty people. Either way. I wasn't talking about accuracy of DNA or Global Climate Change.
To carry your argument further, since we know that innocent people are sometimes sent to prison, sometimes for long periods, and since no matter how careful we are, at the time of sentencing, we have no way of knowing if exonerating evidence will later emerge, the only way to avoid sending innocent people to prison is to send no one to prison.
Policy makers attempt most often to apply the philosophy that they should seek the greatest good for the greatest number because it is often impossible or impractical to look for policies that benefit everyone, so if you believe, as the majority of voters in some states do, that the death penalty improves public safety, then the actual number of innocent people who are executed has to be weighed against that perceived benefit, and most people in those states believe the death penalty does provide the greatest good for the greatest number.
You correctly stated my belief about capitol punishment, and then spouted the dumbest crap I have ever heard. That is one of the most identifying features with the right. You make crap up and claim that is what liberals believe.
Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
Opening page - Dedication
"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
Liberals want to give a criminal chance after chance until their rap sheet are miles long. Liberals feel that someday they(liberals) might end up in jail so don't want a fate of death to be put on them(look at Ted Kennedy and his murder of Mary Joe), so they pass laws to prevent thugs like them from having the chance of execution. But then those same people believe that innocent babies , in or out of the womb should be killed without even having a chance to prove themselves. Lucifer is laughing at all of you.The point is no matter how careful we are, we have no way of knowing at the time of execution if exonerating evidence will emerge later, so the only way to avoid killing an innocent person is to allow depraved mass murderers to also escape the death penalty. So as a practical matter, you are saying no one should be executed.You are also talking about depraved mass murderers since you claim it is not possible for the system to distinguish between them.No dumb ass. I'm talking about executing innocent people.
I'm saying that there have been cases where we haven't been able to distinguish between innocent and guilty people. Either way. I wasn't talking about accuracy of DNA or Global Climate Change.
To carry your argument further, since we know that innocent people are sometimes sent to prison, sometimes for long periods, and since no matter how careful we are, at the time of sentencing, we have no way of knowing if exonerating evidence will later emerge, the only way to avoid sending innocent people to prison is to send no one to prison.
Policy makers attempt most often to apply the philosophy that they should seek the greatest good for the greatest number because it is often impossible or impractical to look for policies that benefit everyone, so if you believe, as the majority of voters in some states do, that the death penalty improves public safety, then the actual number of innocent people who are executed has to be weighed against that perceived benefit, and most people in those states believe the death penalty does provide the greatest good for the greatest number.
You correctly stated my belief about capitol punishment, and then spouted the dumbest crap I have ever heard. That is one of the most identifying features with the right. You make crap up and claim that is what liberals believe.
Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
Opening page - Dedication
"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
