Random thought

[Beelzebaby666]

I think that an illegal alien who obtains a gun and kills someone should have been aborted, thus saving everyone a lot of trouble and contributing to the environment by becoming fertilizer.

I had steak for dinner and I'm a liberal:shrug:

 

[awpitt]

But they almost certainly did something else or they wouldn't have been in a position to be accused of the crime. You don't get the death penalty for shoplifting or smoking pot - you get it for a violent crime. And typically you don't get convicted unless there is strong evidence. Then there's the appeal process and the long wait to actually be executed after you've been sentenced.

So, silly Hollywood movies aside, I don't believe anyone who was ever sentenced to death didn't deserve it.

That's a pretty bold statement considering there are, at least, 16 known cases of people who were sentenced to death and were later proven innocent by DNA testing. I'm in favor of the death penalty but let's get it right.

 

[vraiblonde]

That's a pretty bold statement considering there are, at least, 16 known cases of people who were sentenced to death and were later proven innocent by DNA testing. I'm in favor of the death penalty but let's get it right.

I'm having a hard time getting my point across.

They may have been proven innocent of that particular crime, but it is unlikely that they are completely innocent of ALL crimes. As in, I'm sure they did something they didn't get caught for, so they probably had a death penalty coming anyway.

Liberal authors like Stephen King and liberal movie/TV producers like to put out stories like Shawshank Redemption, where the convicted person is completely and totally innocent - some accountant and upstanding citizen who had never done anything bad, but was framed for a crime.

I have never heard of that happening in real life. The couple of times I've watched a story or interview with someone who was wrongly convicted, it was always some dirtbag with a long criminal record who was better off in prison.

 

[wintersprings]

That's a pretty bold statement considering there are, at least, 16 known cases of people who were sentenced to death and were later proven innocent by DNA testing. I'm in favor of the death penalty but let's get it right.

didn't we have the same prob when finger printing was first used?

 

[awpitt]

didn't we have the same prob when finger printing was first used?

That's a good question. There probably were the same type of issues when that technology first cam out.

 

[awpitt]

I'm having a hard time getting my point across.

They may have been proven innocent of that particular crime, but it is unlikely that they are completely innocent of ALL crimes. As in, I'm sure they did something they didn't get caught for, so they probably had a death penalty coming anyway.

Liberal authors like Stephen King and liberal movie/TV producers like to put out stories like Shawshank Redemption, where the convicted person is completely and totally innocent - some accountant and upstanding citizen who had never done anything bad, but was framed for a crime.

I have never heard of that happening in real life. The couple of times I've watched a story or interview with someone who was wrongly convicted, it was always some dirtbag with a long criminal record who was better off in prison.

That's all speculation. I do agree that if one is proven innocent of the capitol crime, that doesn't mean they get released because they still have to serve time for any other crimes they were convicted for. We can't just assume they did other stuff, there must be a conviction. In the 16 cases mentioned earlier, the DNA evidence resulted in releases because there were no other convictions.

 

[puggymom]

I'm having a hard time getting my point across.

They may have been proven innocent of that particular crime, but it is unlikely that they are completely innocent of ALL crimes. As in, I'm sure they did something they didn't get caught for, so they probably had a death penalty coming anyway.

Liberal authors like Stephen King and liberal movie/TV producers like to put out stories like Shawshank Redemption, where the convicted person is completely and totally innocent - some accountant and upstanding citizen who had never done anything bad, but was framed for a crime.

I have never heard of that happening in real life. The couple of times I've watched a story or interview with someone who was wrongly convicted, it was always some dirtbag with a long criminal record who was better off in prison.

For the most part you are right but there is one case that I know of (Dateline). Yeah I know one out of hundreds of thousands but it has happened.
The Innocence Project - Know the Cases: Browse Profiles:Clarence Elkins

About covering the Elkins case - Inside Dateline - msnbc.com

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

I'm having a hard time getting my point across.

They may have been proven innocent of that particular crime, but it is unlikely that they are completely innocent of ALL crimes. As in, I'm sure they did something they didn't get caught for, so they probably had a death penalty coming anyway.

Liberal authors like Stephen King and liberal movie/TV producers like to put out stories like Shawshank Redemption, where the convicted person is completely and totally innocent - some accountant and upstanding citizen who had never done anything bad, but was framed for a crime.

I have never heard of that happening in real life. The couple of times I've watched a story or interview with someone who was wrongly convicted, it was always some dirtbag with a long criminal record who was better off in prison.

...but you have indeed heard of wrongful convictions. I can't remember specifics, but do you recall a guy or two who was let out of jail after some woman came forward and said "Nah, he didn't actually rape me." ?

The point being that, however rare, it DOES happen. Thus the 100 man rule. Some people simply would rather see 100 guilty set free than 1 innocent person go to jail. The problem is that the focus has always been on that one innocent person who has been given legal protections that an innocent man doesn't need to the benefit of guilty people who get to run amok.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is no hippocratic oath in law. There is no 'do no harm' ethic. Everything in medicine is intended and predicated on the welfare of the patient. There is no goal of providing a diagnosis that says "You are healthy!" when you're about to keel over.

In law, there is profound intent to do just that very thing, view the guilty as something they are decidedly not; innocent. Guilty people go free all the time based on not quite enough evidence. If you read about Miranda, he is just what you describe; a guilty as hell dirtbag who got a technical break.

If defense lawyers were compelled to make the law more just, then we'd have a better justice system. Same goes for prosecutors and judges.

 

[Penn]

I see it like this: if a person commits a crime, such as robbery, and in doing so, shoots and kills another human being, he/she should be tried with the death penalty in mind. Let's say an eyewitness can positively ID the shooter, the person is apprehended, along with the firearm, and fingerprints found on the weapon match the shooters own prints. Furthermore, they weren't smart enough to wash their hands, after the incident, and there is gunshot residue still on the shooters hand, matching the powder used in the ammunition. The weapon has not been cleaned, and that same residue is present in, and on the firearm.

They are read their rights - properly - and hauled off to jail, awaiting trial.

I do not see anything here that would not, or should not, award that person the death penalty.

Please, your discourse?

 

[chernmax]

It's interesting to me that libs can say things like, "We should waterboard George Bush and see how HE likes it!" when they support abortion.

How about if we take all pro-abortion types, cut them into little pieces and suck them through a tube into a disposal? Or what if we jam a pair of scissors in the back of their skull, and suck out their brains? See how THEY like it.

They are all for torturing an unborn child for convenience sake, yet are firmly against torturing an enemy combatant in order to gain information.

Go figure.

Somehow even with Bush's "C" education, he would pick waterboarding over brutal beatings followed by the beheading ceremony!!!

 

[Penn]

It's interesting to me that libs can say things like, "We should waterboard George Bush and see how HE likes it!" when they support abortion.

How about if we take all pro-abortion types, cut them into little pieces and suck them through a tube into a disposal? Or what if we jam a pair of scissors in the back of their skull, and suck out their brains? See how THEY like it.

They are all for torturing an unborn child for convenience sake, yet are firmly against torturing an enemy combatant in order to gain information.

Go figure.

Back to the original question:

Your last statement is the most telling one of all.

They - the liberals - in suscribing to this idea, these tenets, broadly asserts how totally at odds they are, in their thinking. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[Xaquin44]

Back to the original question:

Your last statement is the most telling one of all.

They - the liberals - in suscribing to this idea, these tenets, broadly asserts how totally at odds they are, in their thinking. You cannot have it both ways.

sure you can.

may never happen.

personally, I support both. But then again, I'm neither democrat or republican.

 

[Penn]

sure you can.

may never happen.

personally, I support both. But then again, I'm neither democrat or republican.

Then, truth be known, my statement does not apply to you, does it?

 

[Otter]

sure you can.

may never happen.

personally, I support both. But then again, I'm neither democrat or republican.

So you're skeered of saying you're a demo or repub? I'm a republican and can't stand McCain. Frankly, there are a quite few Demos I would vote for, but no way in hell would I ever vote for Obama. That's neither here nor there, I just wonder how many registered Repubs or Demos are happy with these 2 clowns.

 

[ImnoMensa]

This? Coming from you?

Dont worry sweetheart they wont be working on that vacuum in your head.

At least you spelled "From" right this time.

The last time you used this one you couldn't even do that. So you are learning slowly.

 

[Xaquin44]

So you're skeered of saying you're a demo or repub? I'm a republican and can't stand McCain. Frankly, there are a quite few Demos I would vote for, but no way in hell would I ever vote for Obama. That's neither here nor there, I just wonder how many registered Repubs or Demos are happy with these 2 clowns.

no it means I disagree with enough of each party's respective views that I wouldn't align myself with either.

hehe

(I'm not excited about the prospect of either pres. It honestly looks like we're going to be screwed either way =/

 

[Xaquin44]

Then, truth be known, my statement does not apply to you, does it?

no it doesn't you are right.

It could still happen though.

 

[Penn]

So you're skeered of saying you're a demo or repub? I'm a republican and can't stand McCain. Frankly, there are a quite few Demos I would vote for, but no way in hell would I ever vote for Obama. That's neither here nor there, I just wonder how many registered Repubs or Demos are happy with these 2 clowns.

I'm not 100% sold on McCain, myself. What it has seemed to come down to - again - is this: Is he the best choice the Republicans had to offer? -would I have liked to have seen someone else win the nomination?

Yes! However, I won't get into that..............

But that's just small potatoes now, isn't it?

 

[BOP]

I believe in pro-choice and I also believe in the death penalty. I don't think mothers who are unfit to have children should be forced to have them. There are already way to many women that have children and don't take care of them, that's the reason that there is so much crime. The death penalty is the obvious answer because killers will never be reformed and there is no reason to waste tax payers money keeping them alive.

Isn't it odd that so many of us don't fall neatly into categories the way both the righties and the lefties would have it?

PK for Prez!

The only thing I want to know when it comes to the death penalty is whether or not the person on death row has been accused of any other felonies. I heard a retired cop say one time that for every time a criminal gets caught, there were at least 20 times he(she) didn't get caught.

Here's my thought: if a person on death row is completely without any priors whatsoever, life in prison. If they have prior felonies, execute their azzes. Even if they're innocent of the current charges; that's too damn bad.

 

[Larry Gude]

That's...

.

Here's my thought: if a person on death row is completely without any priors whatsoever, life in prison. If they have prior felonies, execute their azzes. Even if they're innocent of the current charges; that's too damn bad.

...absurd. There is no rational for punishing the innocent, ever. The issue that needs attention is all the stuff the person got away with before and why. Are we punishing effectively enough? Are we holding people appropriately responsible to begin with? That's where the problem lies.

If we address that, we don't have to resort to the argument 'that they'd done it before, so who cares if they're innocent this time' because there won't be someone with a dozen felonies still walking the streets to begin with.

Fixing the system is better than unconscionable band aids.