What's new

My argument for the death penalty...

Wrongful incarceration is a terrible thing, but unfortunately it's the only acceptable alternative to either killing people or making it impossible to convict.

You have, for about the 15th time here, Biley, instructed us as to what is "acceptable" and, in that way, told us exactly what your personal values are.

Suppose I say that I think life in prison is a fate WORSE than death, and that it is totally unacceptable to EVER risk imposing it on an innocent man? Whaddaya gunna say to that? Lemme guess...probably sumthin like this here:

"You're an idiot."
 
ONce the execution is performed, the appeals stop. The requests for new tests are denied as being moot. It would be almost impossible for a defense attorney to show a person is innocent after the execution.

Which is very true. Although there are several case studies in which have made the attempt: https://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

But as you said, it is essentially impossible to conclude once the switch is pulled and resources for continued investigation cease.
 
You have, for about the 15th time here, Biley, instructed us as to what is "acceptable" and, in that way, told us exactly what your personal values are.

Suppose I say that I think life in prison is a fate WORSE than death, and that it is totally unacceptable to EVER risk imposing it on an innocent man? Whaddaya gunna say to that? Lemme guess...probably sumthin like this here:

"You're an idiot."

You are an idiot, but in this case you're simply twisting a word in order to build your own case. The connotation of acceptable is agreeable. In this construct, it means lesser of evils. I'm not getting into wordplay with you. And I'm not dancing around on any Socratic plains. There is no pretty solution to the problem of convicting innocent people. But good luck with your argument that killing them is preferable to life behind bars where the actually innocent have at least a chance of reclaiming their lives, as 138 have done so far.
 
If I so desire, I will. I was at least able to engage in a rational conversation with Hopper, to the point where for a post or two he didn't use his typical writing style. All I see from your posts is a lot of whining and mising the point.

Whatever. I haven't missed one point aint is making, to the extent he's even making one.
 
In this construct, it means lesser of evils.

So, you're gunna re-assert that it aint worse than death, eh? Now I repeat my claim, it is worse than death. Then it kinda goes like this here for a good long spell:

You: Naw, it aint.

Me: Yeah, it is

Y: aint

M: is

Y: aint

M: is

Y: You're an idiot.
 
Lemme ax ya this here, like I done axxed Eric, eh, Biley? Is the possibility of a (eventually irrevokable and uncorrectable) mistake your only real objection to the DP? Would you approve of the sentence if you personally knew the guy was guilty?
 
Last edited:
I just watched Gardner's relatives say that they are glad it's over because now "he can go home" rather than being locked up for life. Kind of echos what Hopper was saying earlier.
 
I guess I should autta know more better than to even ax, eh, Biley? After all, ya done said:

You are an idiot I'm not getting into wordplay with you. And I'm not dancing around on any Socratic plains.

That's cool, you're perfectly within your rights to simply pronounce, for the enlightment of all, what is "acceptable" and leave it at that. Well, ya can't really leave it at that, I spoze, cause ya need to hang around, takin potshots at anyone who doesn't immediately accept your pontifications as indisputable, let the world know that anyone who doesn't share your values or doesn't accept the soundness/validity of your logic, is an "idiot," and that kinda stuff, but, still..
 
Lemme ax ya this here, like I done axxed Eric, eh, Biley? Is the possibility of a (eventually irrevokable and uncorrectable) mistake your only real objection to the DP? Would you approve of the sentence if you personally knew the guy was guilty?

No. Barbarism does not justify barbarism.
 
One adverse side effect of simply flatly abolishing the "ultimate" penalty, presumably death, is that there is a trickle down effect which then cheapens all other conceivable punishments. The old "ultimate" penalty is simply replaced by a new one--let's say it's life in prison.

Now the abolute worst ya ever possibily can git, thanks to the generousity of well-intentioned do-gooders, is life. Who's gunna cop a plea to that? Not nobuddy, that's who.

20 years, with the possibility of parole in 7 mebbe. Mebbe 25 years, mebbe, but, I dunno...30 years, hell ya might as well ask for life if ya want that. But life!? Hell, no! If you want that kinda penalty you're gunna hafta try me. I aint gunna "agree" to the worst I could possibly get anyway.
 
Our system simply does not have the resources to make it possible to try every case. Prosecutors must, like it or not, rely primarily on plea bargains to obtain convictions.
 
I guess I should autta know more better than to even ax, eh, Biley? After all, ya done said:



That's cool, you're perfectly within your rights to simply pronounce, for the enlightment of all, what is "acceptable" and leave it at that. Well, ya can't really leave it at that, I spoze, cause ya need to hang around, takin potshots at anyone who doesn't immediately accept your pontifications as indisputable, let the world know that anyone who doesn't share your values or doesn't accept the soundness/validity of your logic, is an "idiot," and that kinda stuff, but, still..

Maybe if you didn't make it so easy I wouldn't take potshots at you. Love how you hypocritically claim the moral high ground in the process of condemning me for allegedly claiming it. Anyway, you do have the alternative of simply stating your position clearly rather than all the smoke and mirrors which, of course, you'll never do. On the flip side, I do enjoy watching you make an idiot of yourself so I'll get something out of it.
 
Back
Top