(02-28-2021, 01:10 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:

(02-27-2021, 10:27 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Lol, there you go again. You seem to really struggle with the most basic concepts here. You're claiming the person was caught in the act. So were the witnesses who misidentified the persons who've been exonerated. You're saying there was DNA evidence, such was also the case when others were exonerated. I'm saying you would execute a person who confessed to you because you would hold that confession as even stronger evidence than the ID and DNA, but even those have been overturned on appeal. In short, your position is untenable, factually disproven, and violates the most basic principles of American jurisprudence. I hope for your sake you never find yourself subject to the vindictiveness that you yourself wish on other potentially innocent people. But hey, kill 'em all; who cares if they didn't do it.
By the way, not that you asked, but I favor the death penalty as a legitimate punishment at the conclusion of the legal process (must be the liberal in me). But we should always take every precaution to insure that the convict was actually guilty, and history shows that we've not been particularly good at that. Having said that, exactly how many innocent people will you accept slipping through to execution to satisfy your desire for retribution? 1? 50? 1,000? How many are worth it to you?

Caught in the act means the police catch him in the act of murder or the murder was caught on camera. Guess what? Police actually walk in on homicides as they occur. It's rare, but it happens and that is undeniable evidence. So is catching a murder on camera. There are no third parties to rely on, just the cops and the video. How do you not realize this? Do I have to spoon feed you everything? I thought common sense would imply this, since I've stated that witnesses can be mistaken. Do you need anything else explained to you? I read a story where cops walked 

Quit putting words in my mouth! That is an absolute lie. Confessions don't mean "squat" without real evidence to back them up. Serial killer Henry Lee Lucas confessed to killing over 200 people, but was proven he wasn't in the state where most of the crimes occurred. He knew he was going away for murder and just wanted to "pad his stats." Stuff like that happens all the time, because perps want to get famous and since they are already caught, they just confess to things they didn't do for the attention. Everybody knows this. Stop saying you know what I would do, when you have no clue. I've made my stance crystal clear, yet you keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with the original discussion and go against what I have already said, like you're not even comprehending my replies

My way would only execute the truly guilty who have undeniable evidence showing their guilt, so no innocent people would be executed. As many times as I've explained this and shown the parameters I would use, you still don't get it though. It's like I'm trying to teach trigonometry to my dog. I don't expect you to grasp the concept of only executing the truly guilty. I'm not even gonna reply to any of your replies after this, because you obviously either don't understand what I'm saying, you're just being obtuse or you just don't wanna admit your wrong. I've laid out my entire argument bit by bit and I can't make it any clearer.

I understand perfectly what you are saying and keep bringing up your replies because you are wrong, that's pretty simple here. I'm not saying they aren't guilty, and I'm not saying they shouldn't be put to death; I also want the truly guilty to be executed. I'm saying the court better make damn sure they are right because they've been wrong in the past and we should do everything we can to prevent that in the future. By removing the appeals process your position makes those errors easier to commit and impossible to revoke ("death is different" jurisprudence). Your way violates American civil rights and would INEVITABLY lead to an innocent person being executed without appeal.  Sometimes the jury, like you in this case, gets it wrong. If the convicted has grounds to appeal then he or she gets to appeal, and if your so called undeniable evidence is correct then it will withstand the scrutiny, end of story.

---