Death Penalty

[xrayzebra]

That and a willingness to ignore fundamental tenets of due process. I suspect that if anyone of the "fewer appeals" crowd had a loved one who was up for capital murder with a claim of innocence, they'd be all about more appeals and careful examination of what's going on.

I'm honestly against the death penalty in every cir stance. It is not my place to deprive any person of his life, regardless of the reasons for suggesting that he should die. There is value in every person, even if that person commits acts that we might deem unpardonable. A life behind bars remains a life open to the possibility of making atonement and seeking foregiveness. Even if its a remote possiblity, it's a possibility. Plus, in most cases, we can't be 100% sure that the convicted person actually committed the murder -- there have been too many instances in which people sentenced to death were later shown to be innocent for me to believe that death sentences accurately reflect what took place.

I will go along with that, no death penalty. But, a very big but, life means
life. And believe me when I say there are some who have no value in this
world. None. I don't buy the statement: many instances in which people
sentenced to death were later shown to be innocent. Some have been
found innocent, not many. But saying your sorry just doesn't make it so.

[FromWayDowntown]

I will go along with that, no death penalty. But, a very big but, life means life. And believe me when I say there are some who have no value in this world. None. I don't buy the statement: many instances in which people sentenced to death were later shown to be innocent. Some have been found innocent, not many. But saying your sorry just doesn't make it so.

Many instances could be several -- it doesn't mean its pervasive, but it does mean that it has happened on a number of occasions. To me, if one innocent person has been executed, it's too many.

If you're so sure that life is sacrosanct, I'd think the idea that ANY innocent person may have been put to death would be enough to convince you that the death penalty is wrong. That, or enough to remind you that it really isn't all that important when we're dealing with poor minorities who don't get very good representation in courts and can be railroaded through to a death sentence without anything other than cir stantial evidence to support the conviction.

[xrayzebra]

Many instances could be several -- it doesn't mean its pervasive, but it does mean that it has happened on a number of occasions. To me, if one innocent person has been executed, it's too many.

If you're so sure that life is sacrosanct, I'd think the idea that ANY innocent person may have been put to death would be enough to convince you that the death penalty is wrong. That, or enough to remind you that it really isn't all that important when we're dealing with poor minorities who don't get very good representation in courts and can be railroaded through to a death sentence without anything other than cir stantial evidence to support the conviction.

Then you agree that we should do away with air bags in cars? Why, because it has taken the life of many children. Using your argument,
if they kill one child, it is to many. How about the poor, I can cite many
cases where good intentioned laws discriminate against the poor. Mandatory liability insurance is just one.

[FromWayDowntown]

Then you agree that we should do away with air bags in cars? Why, because it has taken the life of many children. Using your argument,
if they kill one child, it is to many. How about the poor, I can cite many
cases where good intentioned laws discriminate against the poor. Mandatory liability insurance is just one.

I think you're badly confusing concepts here. The idea that any person should be permitted to decide that another should die is a view that I don't subscribe to. That is leagues different from acknowledging that there are cir stances in the world that lead to unfortunate deaths. Planes crash and kill people, too, but generally, there isn't a jury of 12 people deciding whether the plane crashes or not.

Death is a consequence of living, but it's not a matter that should be imposed upon any one person by another who purports to sit in judgment.

I have no idea how mandatory liability insurance has anything to do with the dearth of quality legal services available to poor people who are charged with capital crimes. I don't see the State sentencing people to the termination of their lives because they can't pay for car insurance. I do see the real possibility that the State is deciding whether people can live or die because they can't afford to retain good lawyers who will put the State to its proof and provide at least adequate defense against criminal charges. If you equate the two, I can't possibly convince you to let go of that illogic.

[xrayzebra]

I think you're badly confusing concepts here. The idea that any person should be permitted to decide that another should die is a view that I don't subscribe to. That is leagues different from acknowledging that there are cir stances in the world that lead to unfortunate deaths. Planes crash and kill people, too, but generally, there isn't a jury of 12 people deciding whether the plane crashes or not.

Death is a consequence of living, but it's not a matter that should be imposed upon any one person by another who purports to sit in judgment.

I have no idea how mandatory liability insurance has anything to do with the dearth of quality legal services available to poor people who are charged with capital crimes. I don't see the State sentencing people to the termination of their lives because they can't pay for car insurance. I do see the real possibility that the State is deciding whether people can live or die because they can't afford to retain good lawyers who will put the State to its proof and provide at least adequate defense against criminal charges. If you equate the two, I can't possibly convince you to let go of that illogic.

The legislature passing law making air bags mandatory is different from
12 people? It is people passing judgement of what is necessary for
others. The liability thing was an example of other laws that discriminate
against poor. In some cases it is almost a matter of life and death.
They are made to either have the insurance, not drive or violate a law
which is very expensive if caught. I am just trying to show you how
law affects all people at all levels and not necessarily fair. People say
all the time there ought to be a law, but never think of the consequences.

[Extra Stout]

FWD, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

[FromWayDowntown]

FWD, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

sigh