• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Executions

The Central Scrutinizer said:
I'm equally glad I don't live in a country that feels the need to let mass murderers of 270 innocent victims walk free. We execute them.
Click to expand...

Really? I heard that you decorated them for their duty in the Gulf and then retired the Captain on the quiet. I must have been misinformed.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Indeed, if someone is against the death penalty then the death of Lawrence Brewer is just as awful as the death of Troy Davis. But as you mentioned, no protests against Brewer's execution. Seems more like those "opposed" to the death penalty are ok with it as long as they are satisfied that the accused is not guilty.
Click to expand...
You seem to have forgotten the idea of "picking your fights". If the goal (or one goal) of the anti-death penalty crowd is to eventually convince the people - and then, eventually, their government - that the death penalty is wrong, then selecting those cases that best reveal its errors is just smart politics. Has nothing to do with comparing how the victims died.
 
Drachasor said:
Even if that's more expensive than imprisonment for life and still has the possibility of error?
Click to expand...

Is the appeals process really more expensive than imprisonment for life? If so, I've never heard of that. May I ask your source?

Michael
 
Alt+F4 said:
If you are opposed to the death penalty than why is one execution "worse" than another? Shouldn't they all equally be wrong?
Click to expand...


I'm against it because of the chance of putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime for which they were convicted. I'm also not in favor of the idea of killing people. I could make certain, limited exceptions, though. Like in the case of people who chain a living man to a pick-up truck and drag him to his death. That's a mind I don't want to share my air with.

Keep them imprisoned for life. Prison should be for people who are a danger to others. Yes, it's expensive. So stop putting people in prison for buying, smoking, or selling pot. That would save a lot of money, right there.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Not only did I not insist this, I never said it.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I misspoke there. You've been insisting on the false moral equivalence of all examples of the death penalty, and have repeatedly not understood or ignored my counterexamples of how that doesn't make sense.
 
coalesce said:
Is the appeals process really more expensive than imprisonment for life? If so, I've never heard of that. May I ask your source?

Michael
Click to expand...

You've never heard of this?

An example:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Capital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHMENT.html

Now, it isn't always easy to measure the cost, but this place has some quoted studies on the Con side (with little on the other):
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

Capital Case trials are more expensive and have more legal hurdles to go through, all at the expense of the Public (who almost always have to foot the bill for the defense too). Even then, there are still incidents where innocents get off at the last moment, and ones where innocents get executed, so all the safety measures in place still are insufficient.
 
Architect said:
Really? I heard that you decorated them for their duty in the Gulf and then retired the Captain on the quiet. I must have been misinformed.
Click to expand...

You have new evidence surrounding that case that shows it was murder?

If so you should start a new thread on it.
 
Travis said:
You have new evidence surrounding that case that shows it was murder?

If so you should start a new thread on it.
Click to expand...

And does the poster who raised Lockerbie anything to counter the Review Commission's view that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in the Megrahi case? If so, he should go and post on Rolfe's thread(s) on it. Otherwise glib posters making references to Megrahi whilst overlooking what is, at the very least, the culpable homicidce of Iranian airline passengers may wish to shut up.
 
Last edited:
If we have to go down the "my country's better than yours" road, I think it might be more useful to consider this on a State-by-State basis, given that it seems pretty unlikely the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule capital punishment unconstitutional any time soon.
 
Travis said:
You have new evidence surrounding that case that shows it was murder?

If so you should start a new thread on it.
Click to expand...


It's an interesting case.

Only a few crackpot CTers think the Pan Am 103 crash was an accident. In contrast there is a perfectly plausible case to be made that the Iran Air 655 crash was an accident. Personally, my view is that it was an accident, albeit an accident caused by negligence and over-belligerence.

However, the relatives of the 290 people killed, and killed in identical circumstances to the 270 Lockerbie dead, believe it was deliberate. They believe it was, in effect, state-sponsored terrorism. However, there was no independent inquiry, the state believed to have carried out the atrocity investigated itself, pronounced itself innocent, and pinned a medal on the guy responsible.

It's an aspect often forgotten amidst the rabid calls for revenge to be ratcheted up against Megrahi. At least Rogers was actually responsible for what happened to IR655.

Rolfe.
 
If physicians were prevented from taking any part in executions by their licensing boards that would stop the vast majority of executions in the USA.

Would anyone here want to a doctor look after them who believed it was okay to assist in the compulsory euthanasia of a person against that person's will?
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
If physicians were prevented from taking any part in executions by their licensing boards that would stop the vast majority of executions in the USA.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. The "vast majority" of executions in the USA take place in Texas. If licensing boards prevented physicians from participating in executions, the state would pass a law allowing nurses to attend an execution. If the nurses licensing board passed a restriction on nurses, ..... It would get down to the point where an execution would have to be attended by a 7-11 clerk.
 
DrDave said:
Of course you can reverse errors, it's called a posthumous pardon. For example Timothy Evans.
Click to expand...

You probably are being sarcastic. Your reference to Timothy Evans makes it nearly certain. Unfortunately, someone might actually mistake your intention and accept that a posthumous pardon can correct the error of an erronious execution.

A pardon grants clemency to a guilty person. It forgives the crime, but the criminal remains guilty. The purpose of a pardon is to free the criminal from consequence for the crime. If the criminal has already completed his sentence, a pardon serves no purpose except to restore the criminals civil rights. So - a pardon does not reverse the error of an innocent man having been killed by the state.

Execution remains an irreversable error.
 
Drachasor said:
You've never heard of this?

An example:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Capital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHMENT.html

Now, it isn't always easy to measure the cost, but this place has some quoted studies on the Con side (with little on the other):
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

Capital Case trials are more expensive and have more legal hurdles to go through, all at the expense of the Public (who almost always have to foot the bill for the defense too). Even then, there are still incidents where innocents get off at the last moment, and ones where innocents get executed, so all the safety measures in place still are insufficient.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links. I appreciate it.

Michael
 
Steve said:
I have heard that the Scots consider themselves to be somewhat unique, but a completely separate "race"? Well, maybe so.
Click to expand...

Different in the same way as the French are different from the English. Suggesting that the French were barbarians would be casual racism too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom