So then life is given value based on what others deem it to be? If the justification is that a jury of our peers deems one's life to die, would that apply for any reason? What if a jury of someone's peers believed that stealing a loaf of bread was worthy of death? Is human life something that ins inherently valuable? Or is it only valuable if we project value on it?
So if someone confesses to wrong actions do they still deserve to die? If they admit their wrongs should they be put to death? Why do we have the right to dictate that someone's life is forfeit because they committed "x" action? And who's to stop anyone from going to extremes and defining "x" action as being something so subtle as saying a curse word or hurting someone's feelings?
Read Ezekiel 18:23Seriously, read Romans 13:1-7
Wait, they think "I chose to die because I want to burn the Koran"? Or "I chose to die because I feel like committing adultery"? They are victims of society who do not value life and would rather deem certain people unworthy of living because of past actions. I agree that we should punish criminals, and sick minded ilk that commit atrocious crimes deserve harsh punishments, but what is the benefit of death? Why not hard labor? Why not a life of imprisonment?They volunteer to die by their actions. Why do you act like they are victims of the State?
I wish to reform our justice system to protect the sanctity of life and also to bring about justice.So do you wish to over throw our justice system and the way we do things?
So they condemn themselves to die by doing the "right" thing and admit to a crime? Why should anyone confess or feel remorse for actions if they are going to be put to death anyway?If someone is stupid enough to confess to killing someone in cold blood? Well yeah put em down.
I do know that, and that is why I addressed why I believe it's wrong for our peers to put a value on life. Again, would it be okay to put a child to death for stealing bread if a jury believes that it is an appropriate punishment?Why do we have a right? Well it goes back to a jury of your peers and what they think. Criminals know it and so do you.
I will not respond to this.Get some dressings to put over your bleeding heart and get real.
Read Ezekiel 18:23
You apparently do not understand the conceptual difference between innocent and not-innocent/criminal punishment. The definitive scriptures (Romans) from the New Testament covers the issue. That covers "who gets to decide". When imposed as a punishment by law by the legal government.
Two black men convicted wrongly in Texas.. who would have thought that could happen...
As for only getting 2 million.. gezz.. it should be 10s of millions at least.
What do republicans and Nazi's have to do with this? Please grow up.THe republicanazi douchebags that put him there need to pay out 500 times that amount.
I would take it before a jury and make the corrupt state of Texas pay out their redneck asses for what occurred.
Groan. Can you even show where its been proven a single man was killed by the state in the last 30 years who was proven innocent?
I prefer people who have true moral issues with the dealth penalty other than asking for a perfect system
There are times when you can be sure of the crimes a person committed. At these times the death penalty should be on the table. Further, rapists and murderers should suffer in some way.
Just an unfortunate incident that if after 27 years the man the State of Texas has executed was then found to be innocent.
Yes I do know that I have taken Michael Anthony Green's case out of context, but had he actually been executed and 27 years later was subsequently found to be innocent, no amount of compensation would repair that damage.
I would also state that IMHO you cannot compensate for taking a mans life for 27 years and think that throwing money at him will adequately compensate him for not only his suffering but also his Family.
It would be so better if those that wrongfully prosecuted him were to suffer a penalty, perhaps in that way, greater dilligence would be paid to assembling and proving evidence, rather than reliance (in Court) on the rhetoric of a silver tongued prosecutor.
We in the US are learning what the results of having a silver tongued orator will have on all our lives.
Unfortunately, there's no "zero doubt" situations in any human enterprise.
That's why I oppose the death penalty.
2+2=4 and I have "0 doubt" about that. I have no qualms about sentencing someone with the death penalty in a case where they confess.
Maybe they're confessing to protect someone else. Maybe they've been pressured into confessing.
A confession is a long, long way from absolute certainty.
The moral issue is that we don't want to condemn someone to death when they are innocent. Killing someone who was wrongfully convicted of a crime is also murder at the state level. They didn't commit the crime, through flaws in the justice system an innocent person is sentenced as guilty and placed on death row. The moral issue is that we don't want to kill an innocent person when we know innocent people get wrongfully sentenced as guilty. It is a true moral issue.
Can you show where anyone has even tried to figure that out?
There are several who would have been, were it not for the delays introduced by the lengthy appeals process so often decried by fans of capital punishment.
Okay,
Look. Mistakes happen. Law Enforcement has changed over the last 20 years. The standard of proof has gotten higher, the scientific requirements have gotten higher, the way Police Operate has greately improved. Lowering the chance for a false conviction. This I think we shall all aggree is a good thing yes?
To those blathering on with bigoted hate and idiocy towards Texas because of this incident... you don't know, and I don't know all the circumstances as to why these two were arrested to behin with. Was it bigotry? Were they just in the wrong place, wrong time? What other circumstances are you NOT hearing in this liberal wet dream of a perfect story showing the "EEVVIILLSS" of a southern state?
There is always the "rest of the story".
I'm sad they spent so much time behind bars, I'm GLAD they hav ebeen set free, and I understand that we have to try out best, and we have to accept that sometimes he system fails. It WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE RISK OF FAILING.
They shouldn't be confessing then.
I'm not willing to throw out the death penalty because we don't have a flawless system.
I'm not willing to throw out the justice system because it isn't flawless, but it seems to me that until our batting record is 1000 we shouldn't be killing anybody in the name of justice.
Not one single innocent death at the hands of the state is acceptable. Period.
Totally disagree. What you are demanding is impossible and I won't allow hundreds of purely evil men and women to remain living when their crimes under the law warrent death because we don't have a pefect system.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?