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
