 Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I could have made some dough betting on that response 
If I could find anyone to take the bait , er bet that is 
You're nothing if not predictable 
In case you missed it: The discussion had turned to those wrongly convicted, which despite your assertions to the contrary do exist; and in disturbing numbers.
Right, and you of course can always be depended upon for something original. Never one to slavishly follow an Amnesty International, pseudo European Green, Jimmy Carter, smug leftist sort of course. You can always be depended upon for completely original thought. I'm sure it is simply coincidence that it is identical to that vast herd of independent thinkers who all think exactly the same as the hosts at MSNBC.
I'm sure you thought your laser like focus on the vanishingly tiny minority of death row inmates about whom there is a scintilla of doubt concerning their guilt (except among diehard activists that is) would sway those of us among the great unwashed ignorant masses so in need of your enlightened guidance. Personally, I'm not that easily convinced. I've heard the arguments before. Sorry to disappoint, I thought they were largely nonsense fifteen years ago when I voted in favor of the death penalty in the legislature and they have gained no legitimacy with time.
The fact that you did not respond to a single one of my arguments (or for that matter, anyone else's), and instead gave me your standard smug dismissive post, informs me that you are simply outclassed and unable to mount an effective counter argument. I find that to be quite common among those who fervently stand up for both the lives of vicious killers and Planned Parenthood. (Hey, YOU brought that into the conversation.)
Yer killin' me, stop!
C'mon Larry, give us some evidence for your assertions that there are no wrongly convicted people on death row. You've been given evidence to the contrary.
And I don't mean opinions from some whack job "think tank".
(See if you can avoid personal insults, it really hurts your image......... )
Wow Bill. Gotta say I'm a bit shocked that while I know you're a religious man, I find it kinda ironic that you're havin' a hard time seein' eye-to-eye(that's "eye-to-eye", NOT "eye-FOR-an-eye", btw...but I digress) with Larry here and his basic point of..."Kill 'em ALL and let GOD sort 'em out!"
(...oh...wait...THAT'S right...different denomination, huh!...never mind) 
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
Jeez, this is still going? Oy.
Yep John, it appears it is!
(...but THANKS ever so much for lettin' me get that last one o' mine in here!!!)
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393 Likes: 1
Second Wind
|
|
OP
Second Wind
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393 Likes: 1 |
I have no faith in human perfectability. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active - not more happy - nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago.
Edgar Allan Poe
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
No Chad, not "weird" if you THINK about what I said.
(...and I know Bill knows EXACTLY what my point was there, and it's kind of an "inside joke" between the two of us!)
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7
Monkey Butt
|
|
Monkey Butt
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
According to a recent Stanford University study, over a 6 month period in 2011 71% of the panelists on Sunday morning network political broadcasts were conservative/Republicans. The 'liberal media' myth died many years ago. Only true ideologues still try to make that claim anymore.
According to a detailed study over 87% of statistics quoted without footnotes or references were made up on the spot.
We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists. But when push comes to shove most of us are sheep who do what we are told. Worst of all, a lot of us become unpaid agents of whoever is controlling the agenda by enforcing the current dogma on the few rugged individualists who actually exist.
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7
Monkey Butt
|
|
Monkey Butt
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I could have made some dough betting on that response
If I could find anyone to take the bait , er bet that is
You're nothing if not predictable
In case you missed it: The discussion had turned to those wrongly convicted, which despite your assertions to the contrary do exist; and in disturbing numbers.
Right, and you of course can always be depended upon for something original. Never one to slavishly follow an Amnesty International, pseudo European Green, Jimmy Carter, smug leftist sort of course. You can always be depended upon for completely original thought. I'm sure it is simply coincidence that it is identical to that vast herd of independent thinkers who all think exactly the same as the hosts at MSNBC.
I'm sure you thought your laser like focus on the vanishingly tiny minority of death row inmates about whom there is a scintilla of doubt concerning their guilt (except among diehard activists that is) would sway those of us among the great unwashed ignorant masses so in need of your enlightened guidance. Personally, I'm not that easily convinced. I've heard the arguments before. Sorry to disappoint, I thought they were largely nonsense fifteen years ago when I voted in favor of the death penalty in the legislature and they have gained no legitimacy with time.
The fact that you did not respond to a single one of my arguments (or for that matter, anyone else's), and instead gave me your standard smug dismissive post, informs me that you are simply outclassed and unable to mount an effective counter argument. I find that to be quite common among those who fervently stand up for both the lives of vicious killers and Planned Parenthood. (Hey, YOU brought that into the conversation.)
Yer killin' me, stop!
C'mon Larry, give us some evidence for your assertions that there are no wrongly convicted people on death row. You've been given evidence to the contrary.
And I don't mean opinions from some whack job "think tank".
(See if you can avoid personal insults, it really hurts your image......... )
I was going to leave it alone but apparently the dynamic duo wants another round.
Bill, as usual you make a snarky comment and then get all pissy when responded to in kind. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
I never said there were no wrongful convictions, I said they were rare. Please allow me to speak for myself.
I must say that it amazes me how people who are so concerned about the welfare of convicted murderers refuse to answer when questioned about the morality of life sentences for murder versus the death penalty when the possibility of wrongful convictions is at least as high. That the number of other convicts and guards killed by murderers with nothing to lose seems to not figure into their thinking at all.
Lastly, it appears to me that their claim that their opposition is based on the possibility of a wrongful conviction is nonsense. If that was the case they would concentrate on those few cases rather than go all out for those about whom there is no doubt of their guilt. If you want to claim some higher morality that requires us to allow vicious killers to live, and often kill again, then simply do so.
We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists. But when push comes to shove most of us are sheep who do what we are told. Worst of all, a lot of us become unpaid agents of whoever is controlling the agenda by enforcing the current dogma on the few rugged individualists who actually exist.
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Well Larry, truth be told here, THIS part of the "Dynamic Duo" here actually isn't against the IDEA of Capital Punishment, or maybe better said, WOULDN'T be against the idea of it EXCEPT for the FACT that it's usually those who CAN'T AFFORD THE BEST FREAKIN' ATTORNEYS THAT MONEY CAN BUY who usually have a MUCH better chance of being convicted and ultimately receiving that sentence!
Yep! Ya see, in our present "Advocate/Adversarial" system of Jurisprudence, often it's much MORE a matter of how good a friggin' attorney an Accused hires, then it is any supposed "search for the truth".
AND, when you add into this whole equation that the average jury member probably couldn't tell ya who the first Chief Justice of the United States was(in other words, I'm sayin' here that I think the average American is pretty much clueless...c'mon YOU'VE been on a jury and have seen and heard some of your fellow jurists come up with some really lame reasons for their opinions in a case, RIGHT?!), well, like I was sayin' here, the whole process as it presently stands isn't fool-proof, and thus because there ARE often "fools" involved in it, I just can't see how Capital Punishment could ever be fairly and equitably applied.
(...and btw, this has NOTHING at all to do with what your Bible says NOR SHOULD have, WHICH was a point that YOU brought up earlier, Larry...and WHICH was MY point above....CHAD!!!)
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393 Likes: 1
Second Wind
|
|
OP
Second Wind
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393 Likes: 1 |
I can understand the arguement that the justice system favors those who have money and can afford expensive lawyers. Especially with cases such as OJ and MJ getting away with their crimes. Then you got none captital cases where Holiwierdos get away with things that would get the rest of us a couple of years in the jail.
There are a lot of things that have to be worked out to make the justice system what it should be, but it can never be perfect. It can however be much more keen than it is now by a long shot.
(By the way there Dwight, don't get mad at me for failing to understand the religious implications of your remark there. I'm not religious at all. I really don't understand the Bible the same way that religions do. I get something much different from it.) Its a no brainer to me. If I were to land here from some other planet, I wouldn't need the bible to tell me that those who brutally murder others should not be allowed to live their lives out at the expense of those whom he commited his offence. Further more I wouldn't need a book of directions to tell me that spending money to tend to and care fore those who so willingly transgressed the civil tranquility of society to such a degree that they should be removed from it is insane. Removing them from civil society and not allowing them to return is the only way logically speaking. I also do not have to have any other instructions or phylosophic ideas to tell me that crimes that do not require the removal from society, but require punishment should not be carried on and on but punished once and well. For instance speeding for example; It you got a leather strapping, one stripe for every mile over the speed limit you wouldn't get caught speeding more than once.
I have no faith in human perfectability. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active - not more happy - nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago.
Edgar Allan Poe
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393 Likes: 1
Second Wind
|
|
OP
Second Wind
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393 Likes: 1 |
I don't want you to think I am ignorant so here ya go, Dwight. Quote:
AND, when you add into this whole equation that the average jury member probably couldn't tell ya who the first Chief Justice of the United States of America was(in other words, I'm sayin' here that I think the average American is pretty much clueless.
John Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, appointed on October 19, 1789 by President George Washington. Jay served on the Court until the end of June, 1795, when he resigned to become Governor of New York.
The Supreme Court was first called to assemble on February 1, 1790, at the Royal Exchange Building on the corner of Broad and Water Streets in New York City, then the Nation's Capital, but travel impediments prevented the Court from meeting until the next day, February 2, 1790. Some of the Associate Justices, such as John Rutledge, didn't attend the meeting.
The first Supreme Court comprised only six Justices:
Chief Justice:
John Jay, from New York
Associate Justices:
John Rutledge, from South Carolina
William Cushing, from Massachusetts
James Wilson, from Pennsylvania
John Blair, from Virginia
James Iredell, from North Carolina.
(The correct title is now Chief Justice of the United States, but most people refer to this person as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.)
I have no faith in human perfectability. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active - not more happy - nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago.
Edgar Allan Poe
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23,243 Likes: 64
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23,243 Likes: 64 |
The prison sentence part of the argument to me is a good one. I feel a killer should killed in turn but anyone put in prison should be put with others of the same inclination. I don't think a violent inmate should be put in with the non-violent. The non-violent should be safe from those who prey on the weak and if you do something violent while in with the non-violent then you get shipped out to be with those who are also violent. House arrest should be more common for the non-violent too where they can work and pay their own bills. Those non-violent that are incarcerated should have to work to support themselves too. They should have work release in some cases and chain gangs in others to do road work and clean up work.I say fry the really bad ones though. fry 'em, hang 'em, shoot 'em, gas 'em, or inject 'em all forms should be available for use.
I learned all I need to know about life by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Eat right ,Exercise ,Stay fit, Die Anyway!
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
WOW! Gotta say that THAT was pretty impressive there, Chad!  And so now if you will, please take Juror Number Seven's seat in the jury box here and we'll proceed on with this selection process! (...whaddaya KNOW here folks...we've FINALLY found a guy with a friggin' BRAIN to help decide the fate of that guy sittin' over there with his attorney!!!) 
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23,243 Likes: 64
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23,243 Likes: 64 |
Isn't Google a wonderful thing.
I learned all I need to know about life by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Eat right ,Exercise ,Stay fit, Die Anyway!
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,821
Bar Shake
|
|
Bar Shake
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,821 |
Quote:
I was going to leave it alone but apparently the dynamic duo wants another round.
Bill, as usual you make a snarky comment and then get all pissy when responded to in kind. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
I never said there were no wrongful convictions, I said they were rare. Please allow me to speak for myself.
I must say that it amazes me how people who are so concerned about the welfare of convicted murderers refuse to answer when questioned about the morality of life sentences for murder versus the death penalty when the possibility of wrongful convictions is at least as high. That the number of other convicts and guards killed by murderers with nothing to lose seems to not figure into their thinking at all.
Lastly, it appears to me that their claim that their opposition is based on the possibility of a wrongful conviction is nonsense. If that was the case they would concentrate on those few cases rather than go all out for those about whom there is no doubt of their guilt. If you want to claim some higher morality that requires us to allow vicious killers to live, and often kill again, then simply do so.
Allow you to speak for yourself? It's not something you allow others, so follow your own advice and don't dish it out if you can't take it.
If you want to discuss an item place it by itself instead of in an attempt to avoid discussion of another subject.
Pissy? I'm not pissy Larry, your response and attempts at obfuscation really had me laughing. You try to manipulate a discussion to your own point while ignoring the original context, but at least you did finally acknowledge the question; even though I had to bait you to get it out. Yep I manipulated you
Now then, since you have acknowledged that there are wrongful convictions, what is an acceptable number of innocent people being put to death?
Easy question, see if you can stay on subject.
And hey, then we can quid pro quo and I'll answer one for you.
Contra todo mal, mezcal; contra todo bien, también
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,821
Bar Shake
|
|
Bar Shake
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,821 |
Quote:
Well Larry, truth be told here, THIS part of the "Dynamic Duo" here actually isn't against the IDEA of Capital Punishment, or maybe better said, WOULDN'T be against the idea of it EXCEPT for the FACT that it's usually those who CAN'T AFFORD THE BEST FREAKIN' ATTORNEYS THAT MONEY CAN BUY who usually have a MUCH better chance of being convicted and ultimately receiving that sentence!
Yep! Ya see, in our present "Advocate/Adversarial" system of Jurisprudence, often it's much MORE a matter of how good a friggin' attorney an Accused hires, then it is any supposed "search for the truth".
AND, when you add into this whole equation that the average jury member probably couldn't tell ya who the first Chief Justice of the United States was(in other words, I'm sayin' here that I think the average American is pretty much clueless...c'mon YOU'VE been on a jury and have seen and heard some of your fellow jurists come up with some really lame reasons for their opinions in a case, RIGHT?!), well, like I was sayin' here, the whole process as it presently stands isn't fool-proof, and thus because there ARE often "fools" involved in it, I just can't see how Capital Punishment could ever be fairly and equitably applied.
(...and btw, this has NOTHING at all to do with what your Bible says NOR SHOULD have, WHICH was a point that YOU brought up earlier, Larry...and WHICH was MY point above....CHAD!!!)
Yup Dwight, really good points there.
And BTW, another point that our erstwhile politician likes to ignore is that I am on record as favoring capital punishment in those cases where there is NO doubt as to the guilt, such as the aforementioned Norwegian mass murderer. Provided of course that it is applied equally across all social and economic strata.
Contra todo mal, mezcal; contra todo bien, también
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393 Likes: 1
Second Wind
|
|
OP
Second Wind
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393 Likes: 1 |
With the exception of Bill here. I find the "christian orthodoxy" a tedious cluster of legalistic non sequiturs.
I have no faith in human perfectability. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active - not more happy - nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago.
Edgar Allan Poe
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
You've been crackin' open that Thesaurus o' yours again, ain't cha CHAD?!!!
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 18,825
"Lighten up, Francis."
|
|
"Lighten up, Francis."
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 18,825 |
Quote:
With the exception of Bill here. I find the "christian orthodoxy" a tedious cluster of legalististic non sequiturs.
Oh yeah? Well YOU are a non sequitur. HA. In your face.
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393 Likes: 1
Second Wind
|
|
OP
Second Wind
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,393 Likes: 1 |
Thats captain Non sequitur, remember.
Thats a great word, non sequitur.
I have no faith in human perfectability. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active - not more happy - nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago.
Edgar Allan Poe
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,419
Oil Expert
|
|
Oil Expert
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,419 |
Quote:
With the exception of Bill here. I find the "christian orthodoxy" a tedious cluster of legalistic non sequiturs.
I've been struggling to follow this thread (admittedly I've haven't been trying very hard) but now we've gone from (to paraphrase) "the bible says we can kill all the wacky teenagers" to "groups of Nuns with secateurs" (presumably doing charitable hedge pruning). Or perhaps they are the hit squad that's gunna cut those mysterious teeagers down to size - sort of divine retribution meets 'House & Garden'.
Last edited by foglefar; 02/16/2012 7:39 PM.
Cheers, Richard
~~~~~~~~~~~~
09 America, Staintune Pipes, K&N, Breathe, Hagon Nitros, AI & O2 removed, tune 20184 (modified), MTX-L a/f gauge
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8
New Tires
|
|
New Tires
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8 |
Quote:
Quote:
Both the Bible and the US Constitution clearly allow for capital punishment. Saying that either does not, as some do, is simply not true. As for documented mistakes, I'm pretty sure you have to go back quite some time to find them.
The foundation of American law in a Constitutional democracy is that it is better that 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person serves in prison. This is why there exists the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. What is a good time line for the innocent to die or even evidence that would suggest doubt towards guilt? Twenty years? Thirty...forty...or how about just seven years ago?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent
I don't believe the presumption of innocence has any thing to do with it being better to allow 10 guilty people go free than one person serve in prison. The presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt have do with protecting the individual from the state.
Also, had we stood by our constitutional values we would not have participated in the trials of the Nazis.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
H. L. Mencken
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
Quote:
With the exception of Bill here. I find the "christian orthodoxy" a tedious cluster of legalistic non sequiturs.
I've been struggling to follow this thread (admittedly I've haven't been trying very hard) but now we've gone from (to paraphrase) "the bible says we can kill all the wacky teenagers" to "groups of Nuns with secateurs" (presumably doing charitable hedge pruning). Or perhaps they are the hit squad that's gunna cut those mysterious teeagers down to size - sort of divine retribution meets 'House & Garden'.
Yep Richard, I'd say that that's a pretty darn good synopsis of this whole thing to date, alright!!!
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
Also, had we stood by our constitutional values we would not have participated in the trials of the Nazis.
WHAT???!!! And not have somethin' based upon that we could all watch Spencer Tracy and Burt Lancaster do some of their best work in???!!! NOT to mention Maximilian SCHELL, for goshsakes!!!
(...bite your tongue, Mac ol' boy!!!)
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8
New Tires
|
|
New Tires
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8 |
Quote:
Quote:
Also, had we stood by our constitutional values we would not have participated in the trials of the Nazis.
WHAT???!!! And not have somethin' based upon that we could all watch Spencer Tracy and Burt Lancaster do some of their best work in???!!! NOT to mention Maximilian SCHELL, for goshsakes!!!
(...bite your tongue, Mac ol' boy!!!)
Ex post Facto!, But, yes a great movie, watched it very recently on TCM. 
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
H. L. Mencken
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Yep! I've always thought Lancaster was especially good as a once honorable but now broken man.
(...I actually felt sorry for the guy)
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7
Monkey Butt
|
|
Monkey Butt
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Quote:
I was going to leave it alone but apparently the dynamic duo wants another round.
Bill, as usual you make a snarky comment and then get all pissy when responded to in kind. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
I never said there were no wrongful convictions, I said they were rare. Please allow me to speak for myself.
I must say that it amazes me how people who are so concerned about the welfare of convicted murderers refuse to answer when questioned about the morality of life sentences for murder versus the death penalty when the possibility of wrongful convictions is at least as high. That the number of other convicts and guards killed by murderers with nothing to lose seems to not figure into their thinking at all.
Lastly, it appears to me that their claim that their opposition is based on the possibility of a wrongful conviction is nonsense. If that was the case they would concentrate on those few cases rather than go all out for those about whom there is no doubt of their guilt. If you want to claim some higher morality that requires us to allow vicious killers to live, and often kill again, then simply do so.
Allow you to speak for yourself? It's not something you allow others, so follow your own advice and don't dish it out if you can't take it.
If you want to discuss an item place it by itself instead of in an attempt to avoid discussion of another subject.
Pissy? I'm not pissy Larry, your response and attempts at obfuscation really had me laughing. You try to manipulate a discussion to your own point while ignoring the original context, but at least you did finally acknowledge the question; even though I had to bait you to get it out. Yep I manipulated you
Now then, since you have acknowledged that there are wrongful convictions, what is an acceptable number of innocent people being put to death?
Easy question, see if you can stay on subject.
And hey, then we can quid pro quo and I'll answer one for you.
Bill, I guess the number of wrongful executions should be the same as the number of innocent people who spend their entire lives in prison. The number should be zero, unless you are willing to allow for some. Are You? If so, how many? I don't expect you to answer the same kind of gotcha question you gleefully pull out. That is always a one way street.
As for getting off subject, what subject might that be Bill? The one you want? Framed in the manner you want to frame it? Sorry, I've played that game before. I don't accept your premise and I'm not going to concede it.
Besides, your question is nonsense, as I said before. NOTHING devised by man is perfect. If you are going to demand perfection of the legal system you have to let everyone go no matter what the crime. Will there be mistakes? Certainly there will, and everything possible should be done to avoid them, but to this point I notice you are only willing to demand perfection of one thing, capital punishment.
Are you willing to allow those spared killers the chance to kill again? Many of them will if given the opportunity. Why not? After all, they're untouchable under your favored scenario. Kill a few guards, maybe some other convicts, what can be done to them? How many people should we allow to be killed by convicted murderers we have allowed to live? Is there certain number or percentage that would be tolerable?
Cold blooded murderers should be put to death. Of course every possible step should be taken to ensure they are guilty, but when every reasonable doubt is eliminated, it's time to kill them.
We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists. But when push comes to shove most of us are sheep who do what we are told. Worst of all, a lot of us become unpaid agents of whoever is controlling the agenda by enforcing the current dogma on the few rugged individualists who actually exist.
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7
Monkey Butt
|
|
Monkey Butt
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Yep! I've always thought Lancaster was especially good as a once honorable but now broken man.
(...I actually felt sorry for the guy)
Lancaster definitely had the prize role there. A good and honorable man put in an impossible situation. At least in the end he recovered some part of his honor.
We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists. But when push comes to shove most of us are sheep who do what we are told. Worst of all, a lot of us become unpaid agents of whoever is controlling the agenda by enforcing the current dogma on the few rugged individualists who actually exist.
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
At least in the end he recovered some part of his honor.
Yep Larry, he sure did...late in the movie when he FINALLY told those freakin' Nazis and his fellow accused WHERE they could shove their freakin' philosophy!
I think the greatest lines in the whole film are towards the end when after the trial is over Tracy goes to Lancaster's prison cell on his bequest, and when Lancaster's character Ernst Janning says to Tracy's character:
"Judge Haywood, the reason I asked you to come, those people, those millions of people...I never knew it would come to that! You MUST believe it, you MUST believe it!"
And Tracy replies: "Herr Janning, it came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent."
And the look on Lancaster's face upon hearin' that is priceless and perfect.
(...yep Larry, it's a great film, alright...I agree with ya)
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,821
Bar Shake
|
|
Bar Shake
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,821 |
Quote:
Cold blooded murderers should be put to death. Of course every possible step should be taken to ensure they are guilty, but when every reasonable doubt is eliminated, it's time to kill them.
Then what the Hell are you arguing about? If you paid attention you would see that I agree with that statement.
I guess you're too busy trying to label me to see that I don't fit into your box.
Quote:
As for getting off subject, what subject might that be Bill? The one you want? Framed in the manner you want to frame it? Sorry, I've played that game before. I don't accept your premise and I'm not going to concede it.
 What are you talking about here.?
Quote:
After all, they're untouchable under your favored scenario.
What scenario is that? Please be specific as to where I outlined whatever the f--- you're referring to.
The one point I will make that we probably won't agree on is that I demand perfection in the application of the death penalty.If it can't be achieved, then it shouldn't be used.
Life in prison allows for a chance of correction if a mistake is made, death does not.
I'm sure there is no more chance of me changing your mind than there is of you changing mine.
Contra todo mal, mezcal; contra todo bien, también
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 348
Adjunct
|
|
Adjunct
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 348 |
Quote:
I don't believe the presumption of innocence has any thing to do with it being better to allow 10 guilty people go free than one person serve in prison. The presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt have do with protecting the individual from the state.
Exactly and this is why the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not the defense. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt is the million dollar phrase and that phrase accounts during the arrest, the trial and yes...even during imprisonment. It is that concept that protects the individual from the state and why there is an appeal process. It is taught in most any credible law school that this ideal serves to law in a democracy because if you establish a totalitarian style of guilt...then the state becomes powerful and the people then become answerable to it. A certain "safe number to get it right" scenario with capital punishment goes directly against the ideal of our democracy. The state murders a citizen in that scenario...not acceptable.
Quote:
Also, had we stood by our constitutional values we would not have participated in the trials of the Nazis.
Why is everyone going to war criminals in an international setting? I am talking about American law, violations and victims both being American citizens taking place on American soil. We did follow our ideals of democracy with Nuremberg but there was a heck of a lot more to it as it was a collaboration with other democratic nations that changed international law as people knew it back then.
http://www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/sp...l-criminal-law/
Last edited by Trumpeteer; 02/17/2012 5:35 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8
New Tires
|
|
New Tires
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,028 Likes: 8 |
Quote:
Quote:
I don't believe the presumption of innocence has any thing to do with it being better to allow 10 guilty people go free than one person serve in prison. The presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt have do with protecting the individual from the state.
Exactly and this is why the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not the defense. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt is the million dollar phrase and that phrase accounts during the arrest, the trial and yes...even during imprisonment. It is that concept that protects the individual from the state and why there is an appeal process. It is taught in most any credible law school that this ideal serves to law in a democracy because if you establish a totalitarian style of guilt...then the state becomes powerful and the people then become answerable to it. A certain "safe number to get it right" scenario with capital punishment goes directly against the ideal of our democracy. The state murders a citizen in that scenario...not acceptable.
Quote:
Also, had we stood by our constitutional values we would not have participated in the trials of the Nazis.
Why is everyone going to war criminals in an international setting? I am talking about American law, violations and victims both being American citizens taking place on American soil. We did follow our ideals of democracy with Nuremberg but there was a heck of a lot more to it as it was a collaboration with other democratic nations that changed international law as people knew it back then.
http://www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/sp...l-criminal-law/
Ex Post Facto, Constitutionally, in the USA you can't be tried for actions that at a later become illegal. The USA didn't stand by that constitutional principle by participating in the Nuremberg trials. That said, our non-participation wouldn't have changed the outcome.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
H. L. Mencken
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23,243 Likes: 64
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23,243 Likes: 64 |
Quote:
I demand perfection in the application of the death penalty.If it can't be achieved, then it shouldn't be used.
Life in prison allows for a chance of correction if a mistake is made, death does not.
+1
I learned all I need to know about life by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Eat right ,Exercise ,Stay fit, Die Anyway!
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23,243 Likes: 64
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23,243 Likes: 64 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't believe the presumption of innocence has any thing to do with it being better to allow 10 guilty people go free than one person serve in prison. The presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt have do with protecting the individual from the state.
Exactly and this is why the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not the defense. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt is the million dollar phrase and that phrase accounts during the arrest, the trial and yes...even during imprisonment. It is that concept that protects the individual from the state and why there is an appeal process. It is taught in most any credible law school that this ideal serves to law in a democracy because if you establish a totalitarian style of guilt...then the state becomes powerful and the people then become answerable to it. A certain "safe number to get it right" scenario with capital punishment goes directly against the ideal of our democracy. The state murders a citizen in that scenario...not acceptable.
Quote:
Also, had we stood by our constitutional values we would not have participated in the trials of the Nazis.
Why is everyone going to war criminals in an international setting? I am talking about American law, violations and victims both being American citizens taking place on American soil. We did follow our ideals of democracy with Nuremberg but there was a heck of a lot more to it as it was a collaboration with other democratic nations that changed international law as people knew it back then.
http://www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/sp...l-criminal-law/
Ex Post Facto, Constitutionally, in the USA you can't be tried for actions that at a later become illegal. The USA didn't stand by that constitutional principle by participating in the Nuremberg trials. That said, our non-participation wouldn't have changed the outcome.
I think you need to differentiate between war crimes and atrocities and normal law and life here. I don't think it was ever legal to murder millions of innocent men, women, and children even if under the guise of a judge. Any way you look at that one it is and was wrong and should be punishable.
(I am not referring to Hitlers law, if more had refused or simply left when they saw what was going on it may not have been as bad. Those who stayed and sentenced/carried those acts out should have rightly been punished.)
I learned all I need to know about life by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Eat right ,Exercise ,Stay fit, Die Anyway!
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7
Monkey Butt
|
|
Monkey Butt
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7 |
Good grief Bill. Do you read your own posts? Go back and read what YOU wrote. Perhaps you'll figure it out. Crimony, you took two opposing positions in just your last post.
This is beginning to remind me of the guy in the movie "A Guide for the Married Man," whose wife walked in on him in bed with another woman, who kept denying the obvious while they got dressed and the other woman left.
We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists. But when push comes to shove most of us are sheep who do what we are told. Worst of all, a lot of us become unpaid agents of whoever is controlling the agenda by enforcing the current dogma on the few rugged individualists who actually exist.
|
|
|
Re: Those wacky teeagers.
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 18,825
"Lighten up, Francis."
|
|
"Lighten up, Francis."
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 18,825 |
YAY HITLER Finally! (and going round and round in circles).
|
|
|
|
|
