To that, I reply, name one executed innocent person who has killed again. LOL. I throw out this little joke to laugh at the straw man you built here.
Except he never killed a man after he was executed. One person requested an example of someone who murdered after being wronfully executed and one requested an example of someone who killed after they were rightfully executed. Neither is possible so they both still have '0' points. You have '-1' for your pathetic reading comprehension. Did you even break '400' on the SAT?
Except he never killed a man after he was executed. One person requested an example of someone who murdered after being wronfully executed and one requested an example of someone who killed after they were rightfully executed. Neither is possible so they both still have '0' points. You have '-1' for your pathetic reading comprehension. Did you even break '400' on the SAT?
You figure out a way to abolish heinous crimes and I'd love for the death penalty to be abolished.
You figure out a way to abolish heinous crimes and I'd love for the death penalty to be abolished.
I am the one who made the statement "Name one who has killed after being wrongfully executed". Sarcasm sure flies over your head, doesn't it?
You figure out a way to abolish heinous crimes and I'd love for the death penalty to be abolished.
They shouldn't be confessing then.
You can play all the games you want. You've been proven wrong TWICE now. Have the courtesy to lose gracefully.
"Supermax Florence" is worse than the needle
I'm the judge of the game. How have I been proven wrong? No one has named anyone that went on to murder after they were executed.
I'm the judge of the game. How have I been proven wrong? No one has named anyone that went on to murder after they were executed.
Agreed.
The judges from Texas who setenced that man to 27 years should be spending the next 27 years in Supermax FLorence.
What you don't realize is that it costs you and the taxpayers money when someone DOESN'T confess and it has to go to trial. Killing someone because they confess pretty much guarantees anyone with half a brain cell will not confess to anything meaning every single case will be a maximum cost to the
Someone could confess to a murder they didn't commit because they are mentally retarded. Does that mean that we start filling the hypodermic needles when they start talking? Of course not. Hey look, the guy who they say killed Adam Walsh was never proven in court to have killed him. He confessed to hundreds of murders he didn't commit because he was mentally ill.
C'mon RWNJ, you're smarter than this.
And like I said before, that is just another straw man, and that is no game you believe you are judging. Just another red herring. Nobody murders after being executed, not even the innocent, and that is where your fallacy breaks down.
People from Texas talking about competence... wow... that's rich!
You're a righty and therefore not qualified to judge ANYTHING.
Thanks for playing.
Says a conservative representative of those responsible for taking away life from the innocent. No. It's not idiotic. Those prosecutors and judges need to pay the price consequences of their bad judgement. You can call this crazy all you want. All you're doing is sheilding the guilty few from the consequences of their actions.
I say ... if you sentence an innocent man to die ... you face life without parole. You took his life ... you lose your own... so to speak. This law will make mindless, conviction rating-obsessed legal professionals think twice about going after people with only circumstantial evidence. This would also level the playing field for those poor folks who cannot afford a 600 per hour mouth piece to defend them.
It's equal justice ... that makes the prosecutors and judges think twice.
Jesus Dan. Thats an opinion piece NOT evidence.
Read Ezekiel 18:23
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?
I wish to reform our justice system to protect the sanctity of life and also to bring about justice.
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?
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?
I will not respond to this.
Agreed.
The judges from Texas who setenced that man to 27 years should be spending the next 27 years in Supermax FLorence.
I'm the judge of the game. How have I been proven wrong? No one has named anyone that went on to murder after they were executed.
As of March 2005, 119 innocent people have been released from death rows across the country since 1973 (Northwestern University, DP Information Center). Researchers Radelet and Bedau found 23 cases where innocent people were executed since 1900 (In Spite of Innocence, Northeastern University Press, 1992). Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, Inc. Out of at least 400 innocent people convicted of capital crimes they did not commit, 23 were executed. Execution of an innocent person is an injustice that cannot be rectified
The Death Penalty has been abolished in all other Western Countries and civilized societies, except the US:
What about the Jury? The Governor who didn't pardon him? The deffense attorney who failed him?
good night vader-catch up tomorrow night
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?