(02-25-2021, 06:50 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2021, 06:36 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]As far as the death penalty and the cost. Rope isn't very expensive. Before any of our resident liberals accuse me of being "racist" plenty of white people were hung.
I say Kill ‘em all! Black, White, Green, Purple and purnurple. If you commit violent crimes, especially premeditatedly, send them off. Rope is not only cheap but, if done right is also a quick death. Just make sure they fall far enough. Otherwise, that’s when the “torture” comes in. I’m still not sure why we try to “humanely” try to off people that inhumanly killed others. That’s a head scratcher. You botch an execution, big deal.
What about the purplenurple people? And the one eye, one horned, flyin purple people eaters?
(02-25-2021, 06:53 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2021, 06:50 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ]I say Kill ‘em all! Black, White, Green, Purple and purnurple. If you commit violent crimes, especially premeditatedly, send them off. Rope is not only cheap but, if done right is also a quick death. Just make sure they fall far enough. Otherwise, that’s when the “torture” comes in. I’m still not sure why we try to “humanely” try to off people that inhumanly killed others. That’s a head scratcher. You botch an execution, big deal.
What about the purplenurple people? And the one eye, one horned, flyin purple people eaters?
I remember that song in the back seat of a [BLEEP] brown Datsun. Good song. But if those rebels committed a heinous crime... send them out!
(02-25-2021, 06:36 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]As far as the death penalty and the cost. Rope isn't very expensive. Before any of our resident liberals accuse me of being "racist" plenty of white people were hung.
Americans switched from hanging to electrocution in the early 20th century. The people who saw both methods decided that electric chair was better.
And the people alive today who have seen the electric chair and lethal injection say lethal injection is better.
But all of these methods can be botched. And when they are botched, everyone involved suffers needlessly. If you don't feel bad for the convict (and I don't) at least feel bad for the executioner.
It's time to try nitrogen. It's just as cheap as any other method, and even if you botch it and it takes longer than it should, the convict isn't in pain.
(02-25-2021, 07:47 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2021, 06:36 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]As far as the death penalty and the cost. Rope isn't very expensive. Before any of our resident liberals accuse me of being "racist" plenty of white people were hung.
Americans switched from hanging to electrocution in the early 20th century. The people who saw both methods decided that electric chair was better.
And the people alive today who have seen the electric chair and lethal injection say lethal injection is better.
But all of these methods can be botched. And when they are botched, everyone involved suffers needlessly. If you don't feel bad for the convict (and I don't) at least feel bad for the executioner.
It's time to try nitrogen. It's just as cheap as any other method, and even if you botch it and it takes longer than it should, the convict isn't in pain.
To your third paragraph:
This is one of those things to where if you screw up you can just keep trying. Inhumane?? We really gonna worry ourselves about that??
(02-25-2021, 07:52 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2021, 07:47 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Americans switched from hanging to electrocution in the early 20th century. The people who saw both methods decided that electric chair was better.
And the people alive today who have seen the electric chair and lethal injection say lethal injection is better.
But all of these methods can be botched. And when they are botched, everyone involved suffers needlessly. If you don't feel bad for the convict (and I don't) at least feel bad for the executioner.
It's time to try nitrogen. It's just as cheap as any other method, and even if you botch it and it takes longer than it should, the convict isn't in pain.
To your third paragraph:
This is one of those things to where if you screw up you can just keep trying. Inhumane?? We really gonna worry ourselves about that??
If there's no better option, there's no better option.
Sad that the Executioner might have to continue the job while the condemned man writhes in pain, but if we don't have any better way, then that's the way it has to be.
But we do have a better way. Nitrogen.
(02-25-2021, 07:57 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2021, 07:52 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ]To your third paragraph:
This is one of those things to where if you screw up you can just keep trying. Inhumane?? We really gonna worry ourselves about that??
If there's no better option, there's no better option.
Sad that the Executioner might have to continue the job while yhe condemned man writhes in pain, but if we don't have any better way, then that's the way it has to be.
But we do have a better way. Nitrogen.
Well, it the executioner cans handle someone not dying, then I’d say he’s in the wrong business. I understand what you’re saying. The mental aspect of a botched execution could mess with someone’s mind. But again, if that is part of the job description and you can’t do it, it’s not his place to be there. I’m sure family members of the victims, doctors, military members would gladly do the job and in cases without the pay. Point is, the executioner’s thoughts and feelings shouldn’t be an issue. Or at least can be resolved. Main priority is sending a sack of [BLEEP] to hell. I mean, how many people do we need to cater to?
(02-25-2021, 05:30 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2021, 01:31 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Evidence is "undeniable" right up until the second it's disproven, as the hundreds of exonerations in our history prove. And our Founding Fathers lived in a world where religious heretics were burned at the stake and political heretics were drawn and quartered to the cheers of the townspeople. They knew full well what evils people do as well as the evils governments made up of people can do, and that's why they outlawed it. We don't live in a world of Eye for an Eye retribution, we live in a world of dispassionate justice where innocence is presumed, torture outlawed, and sentences carried out humanely, even for the inhumane. And when you start calling people sub-human you eventually expose yourself the same accusation and treatment.
Undeniable evidence is exactly as stated, no matter how you tap dance around it.
Maybe not in your world, but in mine, there is always retribution.
We live in a very left leaning society right now. Dangerous felons are released into society everyday and the news is full of repeat offenders killing innocent people. Is that how you like it?
Your statement sounds like every other far-left liberal I've heard speak on the subject. By any chance are you a criminal defense attorney?
Like it or not, your statement about undeniability has been proven false time and time again. And really? Far left liberal? Yeah, I'm a "far left liberal" like Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton were when they wrote those words into the Constitution that you seem to want to just disregard. Dangerous felons should not be released into society and I have no interest in them being released, I do however find enough errors and mistakes in capital cases to believe we need reform. And no, I'm not a defense attorney but you certainly read like a psychopathic serial killer.
(02-26-2021, 12:09 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2021, 05:30 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Undeniable evidence is exactly as stated, no matter how you tap dance around it.
Maybe not in your world, but in mine, there is always retribution.
We live in a very left leaning society right now. Dangerous felons are released into society everyday and the news is full of repeat offenders killing innocent people. Is that how you like it?
Your statement sounds like every other far-left liberal I've heard speak on the subject. By any chance are you a criminal defense attorney?
Like it or not, your statement about undeniability has been proven false time and time again. And really? Far left liberal? Yeah, I'm a "far left liberal" like Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton were when they wrote those words into the Constitution that you seem to want to just disregard. Dangerous felons should not be released into society and I have no interest in them being released, I do however find enough errors and mistakes in capital cases to believe we need reform. And no, I'm not a defense attorney but you certainly read like a psychopathic serial killer.
Give me some examples of where people were caught in the act of murder or had their DNA all over a dead body, but were innocent? You say this undeniable evidence can be proven wrong, yet you give no examples. You just spout unfounded generalizations.
As for being a liberal, if you preach liberal ideology, how do you expect people to react? What you are saying, certainly sounds like speech from the far left.
(02-26-2021, 12:51 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (02-26-2021, 12:09 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Like it or not, your statement about undeniability has been proven false time and time again. And really? Far left liberal? Yeah, I'm a "far left liberal" like Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton were when they wrote those words into the Constitution that you seem to want to just disregard. Dangerous felons should not be released into society and I have no interest in them being released, I do however find enough errors and mistakes in capital cases to believe we need reform. And no, I'm not a defense attorney but you certainly read like a psychopathic serial killer.
Give me some examples of where people were caught in the act of murder or had their DNA all over a dead body, but were innocent? You say this undeniable evidence can be proven wrong, yet you give no examples. You just spout unfounded generalizations.
As for being a liberal, if you preach liberal ideology, how do you expect people to react? What you are saying, certainly sounds like speech from the far left.
https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonera...ed-states/
- 130 DNA exonerees were wrongfully convicted for murders; 40 (31%) of these cases involved eyewitness misidentifications and 81 (62%) involved false confessions [as of July 9, 2018]
- 23 (22%) of the 104 people whose cases involved false confessions had exculpatory DNA evidence available at the time of trial but were still wrongfully convicted [as of July 29, 2020]
It's really kind of pathetic that you think a fair trial is "liberal ideology". It's makes your bloodthirst quite understandable though.
(02-26-2021, 02:27 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (02-26-2021, 12:51 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Give me some examples of where people were caught in the act of murder or had their DNA all over a dead body, but were innocent? You say this undeniable evidence can be proven wrong, yet you give no examples. You just spout unfounded generalizations.
As for being a liberal, if you preach liberal ideology, how do you expect people to react? What you are saying, certainly sounds like speech from the far left.
https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonera...ed-states/
- 130 DNA exonerees were wrongfully convicted for murders; 40 (31%) of these cases involved eyewitness misidentifications and 81 (62%) involved false confessions [as of July 9, 2018]
- 23 (22%) of the 104 people whose cases involved false confessions had exculpatory DNA evidence available at the time of trial but were still wrongfully convicted [as of July 29, 2020]
It's really kind of pathetic that you think a fair trial is "liberal ideology". It's makes your bloodthirst quite understandable though.
You're not helping your case here at all. These are just generalizations and random stats. I want specific cases where seminal fluid, saliva and/or blood was found on the body or skin cells were found under the victims fingernails or someone was caught in the act of murder and they were shown to be wrongfully convicted. Those are specific examples of undeniable evidence proving someone's guilt. You simply cannot argue against this. These are hard facts.
I never once even brought up false confessions, so I don't know why you are bringing this up? I know some people make false confessions and I know witnesses make mistakes as well. Those things don't pertain to what I have been talking about. None of that is undeniable evidence and doesn't pertain to this specific conversation. In those types of cases, of course the appeals process would remain in tact. I never disputed that, but in the cases I mentioned in my first paragraph specifically, that evidence is "rock solid" and appeals in those cases should be denied and murders should be put to death. How do you not get the difference?
(02-26-2021, 03:26 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (02-26-2021, 02:27 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonera...ed-states/
- 130 DNA exonerees were wrongfully convicted for murders; 40 (31%) of these cases involved eyewitness misidentifications and 81 (62%) involved false confessions [as of July 9, 2018]
- 23 (22%) of the 104 people whose cases involved false confessions had exculpatory DNA evidence available at the time of trial but were still wrongfully convicted [as of July 29, 2020]
It's really kind of pathetic that you think a fair trial is "liberal ideology". It's makes your bloodthirst quite understandable though.
You're not helping your case here at all. These are just generalizations and random stats. I want specific cases where seminal fluid, saliva and/or blood was found on the body or skin cells were found under the victims fingernails or someone was caught in the act of murder and they were shown to be wrongfully convicted. Those are specific examples of undeniable evidence proving someone's guilt. You simply cannot argue against this. These are hard facts.
I never once even brought up false confessions, so I don't know why you are bringing this up? I know some people make false confessions and I know witnesses make mistakes as well. Those things don't pertain to what I have been talking about. None of that is undeniable evidence and doesn't pertain to this specific conversation. In those types of cases, of course the appeals process would remain in tact. I never disputed that, but in the cases I mentioned in my first paragraph specifically, that evidence is "rock solid" and appeals in those cases should be denied and murders should be put to death. How do you not get the difference?
I get the difference, it's you who can't accept the fact that you are wrong. What is "undeniable" really sometimes isn't, and your "hard facts" have been PROVEN to be less than factual in some cases. If you want to go with the Forensic Evidence bit the IP has plenty of additional cases where that evidence was tossed as well. The simple fact is that the idea that a person convicted of a capital offense should not get the opportunity to appeal is foolish bluster. The system we have takes time to get it right before we execute someone and
even then is still shown to be wrong sometimes. But I know you don't care that innocent people get executed and you won't right up until that innocent person is you.
(02-26-2021, 03:41 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (02-26-2021, 03:26 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]You're not helping your case here at all. These are just generalizations and random stats. I want specific cases where seminal fluid, saliva and/or blood was found on the body or skin cells were found under the victims fingernails or someone was caught in the act of murder and they were shown to be wrongfully convicted. Those are specific examples of undeniable evidence proving someone's guilt. You simply cannot argue against this. These are hard facts.
I never once even brought up false confessions, so I don't know why you are bringing this up? I know some people make false confessions and I know witnesses make mistakes as well. Those things don't pertain to what I have been talking about. None of that is undeniable evidence and doesn't pertain to this specific conversation. In those types of cases, of course the appeals process would remain in tact. I never disputed that, but in the cases I mentioned in my first paragraph specifically, that evidence is "rock solid" and appeals in those cases should be denied and murders should be put to death. How do you not get the difference?
I get the difference, it's you who can't accept the fact that you are wrong. What is "undeniable" really sometimes isn't, and your "hard facts" have been PROVEN to be less than factual in some cases. If you want to go with the Forensic Evidence bit the IP has plenty of additional cases where that evidence was tossed as well. The simple fact is that the idea that a person convicted of a capital offense should not get the opportunity to appeal is foolish bluster. The system we have takes time to get it right before we execute someone and even then is still shown to be wrong sometimes. But I know you don't care that innocent people get executed and you won't right up until that innocent person is you.
Innocent people get killed all the time... what's the national solve rate for homicides anyway? 27%?
I think you guys are both right but you're talking past each other. I don't think any of the three of us really know enough about the justice system to be sure about what is undeniable or not.
I will say that DNA evidence is not totally reliable, the perp may have an innocent excuse for their DNA being at the scene, for instance it might have been a place they regularly visited.
And eyewitness ID is pretty fallible, but it becomes more reliable when the witness was already acquainted with the suspect before the crime.
The thing that disturbs me most about jury trials is the way the prosecutors emphasize how heinous the crime was. If I was king I would instruct judges to not allow that kind of rhetoric until after the suspect is convicted. I think focusing on how terrible the crime was makes the jury more likely to convict, "I still have reasonable doubt, but he probably did it, and I can't just let him go when it was such a terrible crime!" Murder trials should only ever focus on "did he do it" and only after the 12 men on the jury agree that "he did it" should we go to "what degree of murder was it and what should the sentence be".
(02-26-2021, 03:48 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (02-26-2021, 03:41 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I get the difference, it's you who can't accept the fact that you are wrong. What is "undeniable" really sometimes isn't, and your "hard facts" have been PROVEN to be less than factual in some cases. If you want to go with the Forensic Evidence bit the IP has plenty of additional cases where that evidence was tossed as well. The simple fact is that the idea that a person convicted of a capital offense should not get the opportunity to appeal is foolish bluster. The system we have takes time to get it right before we execute someone and even then is still shown to be wrong sometimes. But I know you don't care that innocent people get executed and you won't right up until that innocent person is you.
Innocent people get killed all the time... what's the national solve rate for homicides anyway? 27%?
Hey, as long as we're clear about the position you guys are arguing from...
(02-26-2021, 03:41 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (02-26-2021, 03:26 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]You're not helping your case here at all. These are just generalizations and random stats. I want specific cases where seminal fluid, saliva and/or blood was found on the body or skin cells were found under the victims fingernails or someone was caught in the act of murder and they were shown to be wrongfully convicted. Those are specific examples of undeniable evidence proving someone's guilt. You simply cannot argue against this. These are hard facts.
I never once even brought up false confessions, so I don't know why you are bringing this up? I know some people make false confessions and I know witnesses make mistakes as well. Those things don't pertain to what I have been talking about. None of that is undeniable evidence and doesn't pertain to this specific conversation. In those types of cases, of course the appeals process would remain in tact. I never disputed that, but in the cases I mentioned in my first paragraph specifically, that evidence is "rock solid" and appeals in those cases should be denied and murders should be put to death. How do you not get the difference?
I get the difference, it's you who can't accept the fact that you are wrong. What is "undeniable" really sometimes isn't, and your "hard facts" have been PROVEN to be less than factual in some cases. If you want to go with the Forensic Evidence bit the IP has plenty of additional cases where that evidence was tossed as well. The simple fact is that the idea that a person convicted of a capital offense should not get the opportunity to appeal is foolish bluster. The system we have takes time to get it right before we execute someone and even then is still shown to be wrong sometimes. But I know you don't care that innocent people get executed and you won't right up until that innocent person is you.
If you're not going to cite any specific cases using the guidelines I stated to prove your argument, then there is not point continuing this discussion. If your opinion "held water" then you would be able to point to a case and say, "here is where "undeniable evidence" was wrong." I'm not gonna continue to go back and forth when you just throw out vague, generalizations.
(02-26-2021, 04:38 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (02-26-2021, 03:41 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I get the difference, it's you who can't accept the fact that you are wrong. What is "undeniable" really sometimes isn't, and your "hard facts" have been PROVEN to be less than factual in some cases. If you want to go with the Forensic Evidence bit the IP has plenty of additional cases where that evidence was tossed as well. The simple fact is that the idea that a person convicted of a capital offense should not get the opportunity to appeal is foolish bluster. The system we have takes time to get it right before we execute someone and even then is still shown to be wrong sometimes. But I know you don't care that innocent people get executed and you won't right up until that innocent person is you.
If you're not going to cite any specific cases using the guidelines I stated to prove your argument, then there is not point continuing this discussion. If your opinion "held water" then you would be able to point to a case and say, "here is where "undeniable evidence" was wrong." I'm not gonna continue to go back and forth when you just throw out vague, generalizations.
Lol, I gave you specific stats that disprove your position; you just don't wanna accept that you're being unreasonable because your emotions got in the way of your brains. Not unusual, that red you're seeing messes with the bulls too.
(02-26-2021, 12:09 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2021, 05:30 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Undeniable evidence is exactly as stated, no matter how you tap dance around it.
Maybe not in your world, but in mine, there is always retribution.
We live in a very left leaning society right now. Dangerous felons are released into society everyday and the news is full of repeat offenders killing innocent people. Is that how you like it?
Your statement sounds like every other far-left liberal I've heard speak on the subject. By any chance are you a criminal defense attorney?
Like it or not, your statement about undeniability has been proven false time and time again. And really? Far left liberal? Yeah, I'm a "far left liberal" like Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton were when they wrote those words into the Constitution that you seem to want to just disregard. Dangerous felons should not be released into society and I have no interest in them being released, I do however find enough errors and mistakes in capital cases to believe we need reform. And no, I'm not a defense attorney but you certainly read like a psychopathic serial killer.
You're right about this. We agree with Hamilton and Jefferson (and the English revolutionaries) that presumption of innocence is essential to justice and society.
I just wish you also agreed with Hamilton and Jefferson about taxation.
(02-26-2021, 06:35 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (02-26-2021, 04:38 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]If you're not going to cite any specific cases using the guidelines I stated to prove your argument, then there is not point continuing this discussion. If your opinion "held water" then you would be able to point to a case and say, "here is where "undeniable evidence" was wrong." I'm not gonna continue to go back and forth when you just throw out vague, generalizations.
Lol, I gave you specific stats that disprove your position; you just don't wanna accept that you're being unreasonable because your emotions got in the way of your brains. Not unusual, that red you're seeing messes with the bulls too.
You gave stats regarding confessions and other nonsense that have nothing to do with what I said. You're just being vague, because you can't find any actual cases which back up your argument. This entire argument is pointless, because
you aren't following the guidelines I gave which I believe should eliminate certain appeals. I should have expected this from you though, as you always fail to provide details for your political arguments. Just generalizations.
(02-27-2021, 01:56 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (02-26-2021, 06:35 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, I gave you specific stats that disprove your position; you just don't wanna accept that you're being unreasonable because your emotions got in the way of your brains. Not unusual, that red you're seeing messes with the bulls too.
You gave stats regarding confessions and other nonsense that have nothing to do with what I said. You're just being vague, because you can't find any actual cases which back up your argument. This entire argument is pointless, because you aren't following the guidelines I gave which I believe should eliminate certain appeals. I should have expected this from you though, as you always fail to provide details for your political arguments. Just generalizations.
Those stats have EVERYTHING to do with your ridiculous position. Every one of those cases at the Innocence Project source provided were "undeniably" guilty of capital crimes as adjudicated by a jury of their peers. And every one of those verdicts was wrong. This isn't vague, it's clear and obvious. You've taken this stance on your "guidelines" as if it matters. It doesn't. Misidentification. Exculpatory DNA evidence. Even outright FALSE CONFESSION, what you would consider the penultimate case of "Undeniable Guilt", has been PROVEN in a court of law to be, in fact, deniable. I've provided you written documentation of capital cases overturned on appeal and all you can do is try to gin up some hypothetical situation where the defendant shouldn't be entitled to a fair trial. No, you're wrong, every defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence, a fair trial, and access to the appeals process of the United States legal system in every single case that comes before the court, even if he or she did it.
(02-27-2021, 06:12 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2021, 01:56 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]You gave stats regarding confessions and other nonsense that have nothing to do with what I said. You're just being vague, because you can't find any actual cases which back up your argument. This entire argument is pointless, because you aren't following the guidelines I gave which I believe should eliminate certain appeals. I should have expected this from you though, as you always fail to provide details for your political arguments. Just generalizations.
Those stats have EVERYTHING to do with your ridiculous position. Every one of those cases at the Innocence Project source provided were "undeniably" guilty of capital crimes as adjudicated by a jury of their peers. And every one of those verdicts was wrong. This isn't vague, it's clear and obvious. You've taken this stance on your "guidelines" as if it matters. It doesn't. Misidentification. Exculpatory DNA evidence. Even outright FALSE CONFESSION, what you would consider the penultimate case of "Undeniable Guilt", has been PROVEN in a court of law to be, in fact, deniable. I've provided you written documentation of capital cases overturned on appeal and all you can do is try to gin up some hypothetical situation where the defendant shouldn't be entitled to a fair trial. No, you're wrong, every defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence, a fair trial, and access to the appeals process of the United States legal system in every single case that comes before the court, even if he or she did it.
You're putting words in my mouth that
I DID NOT SAY. I never once used identification or confessions as an example of undeniable guilt. Read what I wrote and stop lying. I specifically said, false confessions and misidentification are a real things and are
NOT undeniable guilt. How about actually reading responses, before accusing people of things they didn't say. How typical of you to use falsehoods and random stats that have nothing to do with this specific argument. Keep pushing that liberal agenda.