Posted by dahsdebater on 1/22/2016 7:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/22/2016 7:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2016 7:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/22/2016 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2016 9:30:00 AM (view original):
To be clear, I'm pro-choice and for the death penalty.   I don't discriminate on who dies.

That's odd...

Since DNA evidence started to play a prominent role in the legal process, dozens of people have been pulled off death row after having been found not guilty (obviously not all on the strength of DNA evidence, but many).  Given the small proportion of cases that are re-opened or for which DNA evidence had actually been preserved, it seems fairly likely that at least dozens more have been executed or remain on death row who are also not guilty.  That's extremely conservative.  And in the history of our nations, we've surely executed at least hundreds, if not thousands, of American citizens for crimes they didn't commit.

I could have sworn that a week or so ago you asked if I'd restrict immigration to save one American life.  It was certainly implied that you would.  If you're so worried about pursuing policy that dumps resources into preserving every single innocent American life, I'd think you would be opposed to the death penalty.  My guess would be that more innocent American lives have been lost to capital punishment in the past decade than domestic terrorism.

This. The justice system is flawed. It makes no sense to kill people when there is a very real likelihood that innocent people have and will be convicted.

"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" - Voltaire

In what way is government-sanctioned murder good?

Justice.

Unless you're executing people who aren't guilty.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2016 10:44:00 PM (view original):
Unless you're executing people who aren't guilty.

Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette.

Seriously, that's a lame *** excuse.

The same can be said about abortion.  "What if the child you're aborting is the one who is going to find the cure to cancer?"

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2016 8:13:00 PM (view original):
It's stupid because it's personalized and your "ideas" don't work when it's personalized.    I'm willing to admit such things, you are not.   If my innocent brother was on death row, I'd be against the death penalty.   But he isn't, I've never known anyone on death row so it's not personal.   I can look at it from 10,000 feet and be positive I'm right.

As for the one off cases you're going to show me, don't bother.    To make an omelet, you gotta break some eggs.    The occasional innocent person gets executed.  Sorry, I don't have enough tears for everyone.

This isn't the same thing.  You know if your brother is on death row.  You don't know if he's going to be killed in a terrorist attack.  At this point, a lot more people are killed on home soil by the government than terrorists, though.

How is it that murder is the only crime for which we have apparently determined that "justice" mandates a punishment that resembles the crime, and that a different punishment can't serve "justice?"  If you're convicted of theft the government's not going to take your stuff (though you may pay a fine, so sorta).  If you're convicted of assault, they're not gonna line some guys up to beat you.  If you're convicted of B&E they're not gonna smash up your windows and scare your kids.  If you're convicted of indecent exposure they're not gonna make you look at some dude's junk.  If you're convicted of rape, they're sure as hell not going to rape you.  That's not to say it won't happen in your high-security prison, but it could just as easily happen to the grand theft guy.  And you could be just as liable to fines.

So why, for murder, must the punishment "fit the crime?"  Why can't a life prison sentence constitute "justice?"  How is it even possible that in your mind, the one-word response "justice" answers the question of what makes government-sanctioned murder ok?  Does that mean you should get off scot-free for murder 1 if the guy you killed had murdered a member of your family or a close friend?  Seems like it should.  Killing someone who previously killed someone else is justice.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/22/2016 10:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2016 10:44:00 PM (view original):
Unless you're executing people who aren't guilty.

Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette.

Seriously, that's a lame *** excuse.

The same can be said about abortion.  "What if the child you're aborting is the one who is going to find the cure to cancer?"

You don't have to break any eggs. Throw people who commit crimes in prison. If it turns out they are innocent, you can let them out.

I'm not for the death penalty.... Not because the bastards don't deserve it, but because it cost the taxpayers millions more in tax dollars to execute than to have them serve life without parole.

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/22/2016 11:22:00 PM (view original):
How is it that murder is the only crime for which we have apparently determined that "justice" mandates a punishment that resembles the crime, and that a different punishment can't serve "justice?"  If you're convicted of theft the government's not going to take your stuff (though you may pay a fine, so sorta).  If you're convicted of assault, they're not gonna line some guys up to beat you.  If you're convicted of B&E they're not gonna smash up your windows and scare your kids.  If you're convicted of indecent exposure they're not gonna make you look at some dude's junk.  If you're convicted of rape, they're sure as hell not going to rape you.  That's not to say it won't happen in your high-security prison, but it could just as easily happen to the grand theft guy.  And you could be just as liable to fines.

So why, for murder, must the punishment "fit the crime?"  Why can't a life prison sentence constitute "justice?"  How is it even possible that in your mind, the one-word response "justice" answers the question of what makes government-sanctioned murder ok?  Does that mean you should get off scot-free for murder 1 if the guy you killed had murdered a member of your family or a close friend?  Seems like it should.  Killing someone who previously killed someone else is justice.

Because murder is different.

If you're a victim of theft, you can either get your stuff back or get new stuff to replace it.

If you're a victim of assault, you heal.

If you're raped, you eventually come to terms with it, either on your own or with the help of counseling.

If you're murdered . . . you're dead.  There's no coming back from that.

Plus, the families of the victims are often forced to relive the loss of their loved ones over and over.  Here in CT in 2007, we had a brutal triple murder in which a couple of low life ******** raped and murdered a mother and her two teenaged daughters in their house while the husband was beaten and tied up in the basement.  When they were done, they set the house on fire and left.  The husband was able to free himself and escape with his life.  The two murderers were caught, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death.  Since then, our stupid *** state revoked the death penalty, and their death sentences were commuted to life sentences.

That action alone brought the crime back into the public spotlight, and the husband again had to deal with the media circus and relive the events of that day.  Even more recently, one of the murderers has been complaining about the way he's being treated in prison, particularly about the food he's being served, and has filed a lawsuit against CT for the "inhumane treatment" he's had to deal with in prison.  Meanwhile, his victims are still dead.  And I'm sure in a couple of years there will be parole hearings in which the murderers will have their days in court to plead their case for release, which will again cause the husband to once again relive the events of that day.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

The death penalty brings closure.  Appropriate punishment for the murderers.  Some level of closure for the families of the victims in knowing that those who did harm to their loved ones have paid the ultimate price that their actions deserved.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2016 10:44:00 PM (view original):
Unless you're executing people who aren't guilty.

Says the person who believes mass rioting and burning of innocent peoples businesses is a good thing if the ends justifies the means.
BL plays both sides so he is never wrong but that also makes him never right. He's a loser.

Posted by bheid408 on 1/23/2016 9:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2016 10:44:00 PM (view original):
Unless you're executing people who aren't guilty.

Says the person who believes mass rioting and burning of innocent peoples businesses is a good thing if the ends justifies the means.
BL plays both sides so he is never wrong but that also makes him never right. He's a loser.

LOL.

BL has said so many stupid things over the years in these forums, that I completely forgot about that one.

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/22/2016 11:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2016 8:13:00 PM (view original):
It's stupid because it's personalized and your "ideas" don't work when it's personalized.    I'm willing to admit such things, you are not.   If my innocent brother was on death row, I'd be against the death penalty.   But he isn't, I've never known anyone on death row so it's not personal.   I can look at it from 10,000 feet and be positive I'm right.

As for the one off cases you're going to show me, don't bother.    To make an omelet, you gotta break some eggs.    The occasional innocent person gets executed.  Sorry, I don't have enough tears for everyone.

This isn't the same thing.  You know if your brother is on death row.  You don't know if he's going to be killed in a terrorist attack.  At this point, a lot more people are killed on home soil by the government than terrorists, though.

It is the same thing.   I'm telling you your loved one will be a victim of a terrorist attack.     Or will be sexually assaulted by a Syrian refugee. 

Does your ideology still hold true?   No, it does not. 

You're willing to dismiss ideas on how to possibly avoid having Americans be subjected to these things because you don't think it will directly affect you.   But, if told that it will, you change your tune.   Basically, you're a hypocrite.

But, to be fair, so am I.    Difference is, I admit it.

Posted by bheid408 on 1/23/2016 9:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2016 10:44:00 PM (view original):
Unless you're executing people who aren't guilty.

Says the person who believes mass rioting and burning of innocent peoples businesses is a good thing if the ends justifies the means.
BL plays both sides so he is never wrong but that also makes him never right. He's a loser.

I don't think it's a good thing. I certainly don't advocate rioting. I said I understand the frustration and anger and that it might be a viable means to an end.

And, either way, citizens fighting back against an unjust government is completely different than the government killing people.

There you go again, changing your stance on a subject. You don't advocate rioting but if it's a viable means to an end then you do. Sorry retard, you can't have it both ways.

I'm not advocating rioting. I'm saying I understand the frustration.