• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Electrocution for DP cases violate the 8th Amendment?

Electrocution for DP cases violate the 8th Amendment?


  • Total voters
    33
Death penalty is a ghastly hangover from medieval times and its liturgy of executions of heretics. We have the last meal, the empty cartridge in firing squads (for what?), the prospect of a stay at the last minute, the family of the victim approving, (suppose they oppose the execution?), the last mile and last words. If a murderer killed his victim like that, we would pronounce it the height of sadism: “Ok, buddy, I’m not going to murder you now, but in a couple of hours. Here’s a clock to keep you company. And this is the way I am going to do it. Think about that. And the guy, your accomplice, who turned states evidence to rat you out, will be free in 20 years.” I think of the DA, in Texas or somewhere, who campaigned for higher office with an ad showing blown up photos of the guys he had sent to their deaths. Who wouldn’t vote for that guy? All that was missing were scalps hanging from his belt. Capital punishment, like torture, demeans everyone involved.
 
I understand that it is difficult for you to admit your deficiencies.

I do not need to "research" basic knowledge.



https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-20-13/

“Thou shalt not kill.”

And I do not even practice Christianity.





You are embarassing yourself with your demonstated ignorance and the help you seek to verify such basic information.
The Bible was not written by King James in English. You are embarrassing yourself.
 
I am against capital punishment, on account of it's a penalty you can't reverse if you're wrong.

But if you're gonna do it, electrocution works. So does defenestration.
 
Can ya tell me what happens to the executed that are later cleared?
It never happens nor has it, at least in the last 50 years.
 
It never happens nor has it, at least in the last 50 years.

That post was so hilariously wrong that it made my night.

Carlos DeLuna was executed in Texas in December 1989 for stabbing a gas station clerk to death. Subsequent investigations cast strong doubt upon DeLuna's guilt for the murder of which he had been convicted.[29][30] His execution came about six years after the crime was committed. The trial ended up attracting local attention, but it was never suggested that an innocent man was about to be punished while the actual killer went free. DeLuna was found blocks away from the crime scene with $149 in his pocket. From that point on, it went downhill for the young Carlos DeLuna. A wrongful eyewitness testimony is what formed the case against him. Unfortunately, DeLuna's previous criminal record was very much used against him.[31] The real killer, Carlos Hernandez, was a repeat violent offender who actually had a history of slashing women with his unique buck knife, not to mention he looked very similar to Carlos DeLuna. Hernandez did not keep quiet about his murder; apparently he went around bragging about the killing of Lopez. In 1999, Hernandez was imprisoned for attacking his neighbor with a knife.[32]
 
Jesse Tafero was convicted of murder and executed via electric chair in May 1990 in the state of Florida for the murders of a Florida Highway Patrol officer and a Canadian constable. The conviction of a co-defendant was overturned in 1992 after a recreation of the crime scene indicated a third person had committed the murders.[33] Not only was Tafero wrongly accused, his electric chair malfunctioned as well – three times. As a result, Tafero's head caught on fire. After this encounter, a debate was focused around humane methods of execution. Lethal injections became more common in the states rather than the electric chair.[34]

Johnny Garrett of Texas was executed in February 1992 for allegedly raping and murdering a nun. In March 2004 cold-case DNA testing identified Leoncio Rueda as the rapist and murderer of another elderly victim killed four months earlier.[35] Immediately following the nun's murder, prosecutors and police were certain the two cases were committed by the same assailant.[36] The flawed case is explored in a 2008 documentary entitled The Last Word.

Cameron Todd Willingham of Texas was convicted and executed for the death of his three children who died in a house fire. The prosecution charged that the fire was caused by arson. He has not been posthumously exonerated, but the case has gained widespread attention as a possible case of wrongful execution. A number of arson experts have decried the results of the original investigation as faulty. In June 2009, five years after Willingham's execution, the State of Texas ordered a re-examination of the case. Dr. Craig Beyler found "a finding of arson could not be sustained". Beyler said that key testimony from a fire marshal at Willingham's trial was "hardly consistent with a scientific mind-set and is more characteristic of mystics or psychics".[37][38] The Texas Forensic Science Commission was scheduled to discuss the report by Beyler at a meeting on October 2, 2009, but two days before the meeting Texas Governor Rick Perry replaced the chair of the commission and two other members. The new chair canceled the meeting, sparking accusations that Perry was interfering with the investigation and using it for his own political advantage.[39][40] In 2010, a four-person panel of the Texas Forensic Science Commission acknowledged that state and local arson investigators used "flawed science" in determining the blaze had been deliberately set.[41]

In 2015, the Justice Department and the FBI formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an FBI forensic squad overstated forensic hair matches for two decades before the year 2000.[42][43] Of the 28 forensic examiners testifying to hair matches in a total of 268 trials reviewed, 26 overstated the evidence of forensic hair matches and 95% of the overstatements favored the prosecution. Defendants were sentenced to death in 32 of those 268 cases.

 
The Bible was not written by King James in English. You are embarrassing yourself.

LOLOL

Are you that clueless and you do not know that English-speaking Christians use translations?


The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB), sometimes as the English version of 1611, or simply the Authorized Version (AV), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England, commissioned in 1604 and completed as well as published in 1611 under the sponsorship of James VI and I.[a]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#cite_note-3
 
That post was so hilariously wrong that it made my night.
That’s called an allegation. You are supposing a different man committed the murder despite the alleged “real killer” having not been convicted for that crime and the sentenced one having been convicted and the sentence upheld. The fact your only evidence is that another violent felon bragged about (with no evidence he told the truth) does not mean the system was wrong.
 
That’s called an allegation. You are supposing a different man committed the murder despite the alleged “real killer” having not been convicted for that crime and the sentenced one having been convicted and the sentence upheld. The fact your only evidence is that another violent felon bragged about (with no evidence he told the truth) does not mean the system was wrong.

I listed 5 examples, all of which were found by authorities to have been a wrongful execution.
 
LOLOL

Are you that clueless and you do not know that English-speaking Christians use translations?


The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB), sometimes as the English version of 1611, or simply the Authorized Version (AV), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England, commissioned in 1604 and completed as well as published in 1611 under the sponsorship of James VI and I.[a]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#cite_note-3
I do not know what “thou shalt not kill” exactly meant in 17th century Protestant England, however the original Hebrew shows the commandment only prohibits killing when the killing would assign bloodguilt to the slayer.

the verb used is “ratsach”(רָצַח) which is only used in reference to murders in violation of the law. The books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy go on to authorize the death penalty and assign massive lists of crimes for which death is the sentence
 
I listed 5 examples, all of which were found by authorities to have been a wrongful execution.
None of those describe a wrongful execution. The condemned were all convicted and sentences sustained. And it appears the evidence for their “exoneration” appears to be argued by people ideologically against the death penalty and thus manufactured by those with incentive to be untruthful. One of your cases even says “although not exonerated” right in the summary.

so your cause for exoneration in one case is that years after the fact a different expert disagreed with the findings of an arson investigator, which is not proof there was no arson, in another case your evidence is that another felon could reenact some details of a crime, which is not evidence for the innocence of the convicted, and in another case DNA (which is not completely reliable especially when dealing with older samples) showed a different guy actually sexually assaulted a different victim at a different time, but did not actually connect that different guy to the original crime.
 
None of those describe a wrongful execution. The condemned were all convicted and sentences sustained. And it appears the evidence for their “exoneration” appears to be argued by people ideologically against the death penalty and thus manufactured by those with incentive to be untruthful. One of your cases even says “although not exonerated” right in the summary.

so your cause for exoneration in one case is that years after the fact a different expert disagreed with the findings of an arson investigator, which is not proof there was no arson, in another case your evidence is that another felon could reenact some details of a crime, which is not evidence for the innocence of the convicted, and in another case DNA (which is not completely reliable especially when dealing with older samples) showed a different guy actually sexually assaulted a different victim at a different time, but did not actually connect that different guy to the original crime.

I keep forgetting that you despise republics and the rule of law, and don't understand basic science.
 
That post was so hilariously wrong that it made my night.
I don't think many people would take the position that no one innocent has been executed in the US. I understand EMN might, but the real debate would just be about how often it happens.
 
I do not know what “thou shalt not kill” exactly meant in 17th century Protestant England, however the original Hebrew shows the commandment only prohibits killing when the killing would assign bloodguilt to the slayer.

the verb used is “ratsach”(רָצַח) which is only used in reference to murders in violation of the law. The books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy go on to authorize the death penalty and assign massive lists of crimes for which death is the sentence

English-speaking Christians do not read the Hebrew original and the phrase as you can see come from the book of Exodus.
The language has not changed that much to make the meaning of 'thou shalt not kill” confusing.

So stop trying to convince us about the supposedly clear meaning that you see in a Hebrew word.
If you are into Jewish religion, then obviously you cannot speak about the interpretations of Christian denominations.
 
I don't think many people would take the position that no one innocent has been executed in the US. I understand EMN might, but the real debate would just be about how often it happens.

Some people find it literally impossible to admit the state made a mistake.
 
I keep forgetting that you despise republics and the rule of law, and don't understand basic science.
LOL you literally cited a case as a wrongful execution because DNA linked a different man to a different crime.

I doubt you have such expertise in fire science that you can adjudicate a dispute in an arson finding. You simply are using a disagreement to baselessly assert the result you want.
 
Some people find it literally impossible to admit the state made a mistake.
Which is weird, because there is so much evidence that our justice system is not exactly reliable. I hope the wrongful convictions tend to land on bad people who should be locked up regardless, but the idea that there has never been an execution of innocent is preposterously unlikely.
 
English-speaking Christians do not read the original and the phrase as you can see come from the book of Exodus.
The language has not changed that much to make the meaning of 'thou shalt not kill” confusing.
at their own peril.
So stop trying to convince us about the upposedly clear meaning that you see in a Hebrew word.
If you are into Jewish religion, then obviously you cannot speak about the interpretations of Christian denominations.
There is a clear meaning to scripture. It says what it says. It does not say “thou shalt not kill” as that phrase is understood today. So any assertion that it does is factually incorrect.
 
at their own peril.

There is a clear meaning to scripture. It says what it says. It does not say “thou shalt not kill” as that phrase is understood today. So any assertion that it does is factually incorrect.

Every religious person chooses to accept different interpretations of unverifiable stories at his own peril.

So, you use a hebrew word to make your case about the "clear meaning" of the scripture ?

You can make this case to a follower of the Jewish religion, but you cannot convince an English speaking Christian.

And the passage itself says nothing of what you say. Again from the link of the English translation:

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 13Thou shalt not kill. 14Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15Thou shalt not steal. 16Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Also, unlike the Jews, the Christians see the Old Testament (or Torah for you) from a differnt perspective because of their beliefs in the New Testament which in some ways amends the meaning of the old text.
 
Every religious person chooses to accept different interpretations of unverifiable stories at his own peril.

So, you use a hebrew word to make your case about the "clear meaning" of the scripture ?

You can make this case to a follower of the Jewish religion, but you cannot convince an English speaking Christian.

And the passage itself says nothing of what you say. Again from the link of the English translation:

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 13Thou shalt not kill. 14Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15Thou shalt not steal. 16Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Also, unlike the Jews, the Christians see the Old Testament (or Torah for you) from a differnt perspective because of their beliefs in the New Testament which in some ways amends the meaning of the old text.

The New Testament does not amend the old testament. North is translation of the Bible into another language change its meaning. If you choose to believe your own interpretation of an English translation over the clear meaning of the Scriptures, you do so at your own peril but you are not correct.

You are clearly highly ignorant in theology.
 
Are you sure about that?



Find any other English translation to challenge the translation of the phrase and argue that it meaning is different. You have the book and the specific verse.
 
Find any other English translation to challenge the translation of the phrase and argue that it meaning is different. You have the book and the specific verse.
I'm not into bible study. Just wondering if you are sure?
 
The New Testament does not amend the old testament. North is translation of the Bible into another language change its meaning. If you choose to believe your own interpretation of an English translation over the clear meaning of the Scriptures, you do so at your own peril but you are not correct.

You are clearly highly ignorant in theology.

You cannot speak on behalf of the Christians by using your Jewish interpretations. The New Testament challenges the traditional Hebrew religious law. Of course, as usual with most religious interpretations, one can find contradicting passages in the New Testament and there is a debate even among Christians about the scripture's interpretations.

Personally, I do not believe in any of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom