Pro Death Penalty advocates are cowards and nothing more.

It seems that when I ask them about the possibility of an innocent person being executed, they simply don't reply. They have no answer.

I've must have posted that scenario a dozen times and have not seen one blood thirsty pro death penalty coward answer that question.

So I'll ask it again....

Out of the 1000 and one that have been executed, there's a pretty good chance that a couple have been innocent. How could we guess this? Because there have been people who have been on death row that were exonerated. If they weren't exonerated they would have been MURDERED by the state!

So my question{s} uhhh AGAIN is: How can we be certain that every person on death row is guilty? Can you give me 100 percent assurances that 100 percent are guilty?

And if you can't... How can you reconcile that with your belief that everyone on death row should be terminated? You can't have it both ways---it's either all or none.

Last question... Do you think that executing an innocent person is murder?

Come on now---one of you hot honcho tough guy/girl pro death penalty advocates step up to the plate and answer my questions.

I'd also like to see how they reconcile their support for the death penalty with the fact that execution is SELECTIVELY applied only to poor people who cannot afford adequate legal counsel.

When is the last time a rich white man got executed?

Many are cowards, but most are simply ignorant.

should be allowed their full appeal process, all new evidence must be considered and then if still deemed guilty should be croaked.

is nothing but flamebait.

this thread is nothing more than blanket name-calling.

Nah...more like a napkin.

guarantee their innocence? How long are we going to chase our tails on this?

Contrary to the assumption, 'new evidence' even of innocence is not always admissable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1996
http://www.crimopinion.com/aedpa_standard_of_review/

How about that?

What then?

And what about THIS:

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." -- Antonin Scalia
http://members.magnet.at/ai.dornbirn/herrerae.htm

message by calling the thread "flame bait"

make a Joe McCarthy/Bill Oreilly list and put us pro-death penalty people on ignore, that would solve your problems.

Bill Oreilly list and hit ignore, I won't change your mind and you won't mine.

Is that so much to expect?

Side-stepping the questions is much easier than actually thinking about them, huh?

Can't alert on ignored posts, you know.

Yeah thats the idea, if we ignore the wolfs in sheeps clothing then the Alerts can't happen, you know the posts that call for the death of all gangmembers? or did you miss that gem last nite?

How about you answer the question?

Said debate/discuss is what I would like to see in this "DISCUSSION" forum.

...for Hate Crimes.

How can we be certain that every person on death row is guilty?
You can't.

Do you think that executing an innocent person is murder?
Of course.

I advocate the death penalty for anyone who has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed a hate crime. Do you honestly believe the two bastards who tied Matthew Shepard to a fence, beat him to within an inch of his life, then left him there - all because he was gay - deserve to live? I don't. If they live then there is a chance that they might get free. There is a chance that they might write a book or something and profit from their hate. Do you believe Nazi's who go out and kill gays and Jews should be allowed to live? I don't.

I don't propose executing as many people as we do, on as flimsy as evidence as has been used. I would strengthen the laws used for execution, require more proof and set a high standard, I would also set it for hate crimes only. I would also make it so that the process moves along quicker - no 10 year wait. You get a chance to appeal your case once or twice and then it goes straight to the SCOTUS. After that you're dead.

Do you support allowing those who commit violent hate crimes live so that they can spread their hate, perhaps even eventually getting free from prison to kill again? Start gangs in prison which spread their poison so that those who are eventually let free continue on the legacy of the hate monger? I don't.

Lets ask Albert Owens!

pure an simple....when a man is helpless, strappled to a gurney or electric chair or with a rope around his neck, and put to death by the state, that is an act of murder. Pure and simle.

the man in the gurney or the man behind the counter with a shotgun to his face? The man with the shotgun had a choice, he made his and society made theirs.

IOt's about the Death Penalty of the United States of America.

I'm talking about everybody on death row....

Prove to me they are all guilty...100 percent all of them...

It's a judge and a jury. They make the decisions.

My resolve on my stance only becomes hardened.

You're a booger head... So does that mean you're resolved to be a booger head?

The only other people that would be deserving of death are mass murderers and serial killers, but I think they can be used by society. Place them in a high security mental institution where we can study them and figure out what lead them to their acts, so we can better determine ways for society to prevent such acts from happening again in the future.

Someone who commits an act of hate is a poison in society. They are possibly creating hundreds of other hate mongers. I support the freedom of speech for them to preach their vileness - but it ends when they act on it. And when they act on it we should send a strong message by saying it is not acceptable, and that those who do such things pay the ultimate price.

...and no I do not support the 'humane' execution of those hate mongers either. I would prefer a public death that is slow and painful so that EVERYONE gets the message.

if there is something to justify the ends.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You ignore anyone who disagrees with you...From your perspective there must be three responses to each thread.

petrified stance, given your opinions on the DP and atomic bombs, I think you get called names a lot.

who pointed out that there are is a division between liberals and conservatives along the "freedom" fault line:

A conservative would rather see an innocent person punished for a crime he did not commit to make sure every guilty person gets what they deserve while a liberal would rather see a guilty person go free rather than punish someone who is innocent.

It's THE fault line in our society

I'll have to remember that one. That's very good.

n/t

I don't consider myself particularly bloodthirsty, or cowardly for that matter, but . . .

Answer to Question 1: To be honest, no one can give you 100 percent assurance that 100 percent of everyone on death row is guilty. However, your question seems to imply that unless and until we can do so, no one should be sentenced to death. Applying that logic, of course, and taking it to its conclusion, since we have no assurance that 100 percent of the persons in prison are guilty in fact, then there should be no prisons.

Answer to Question 2: Your question makes an unwarranted assumption that everyone who supports the death penalty wishes it to be applied to everyone who is currently on death row. There is no connection between the two. There is a difference between support for the death penalty in general, and the decision that it should be applied in a particular case. Simply because of its finality, I believe there should be strong safeguards against the use of the death penalty, and I am dismayed at the watering down of the procedural safeguards already in place. But this does not change my support for the death penalty in a proper case. So it appears it is not "all or none" as you suggest.

Answer to Question 3: Of course executing an innocent person is murder. Of course, much will depend on what you mean by "innocent." Like it or not, our jury system is arguably the best way we poor human beings have found yet to determine guilt or inncocence. There is no one on death row who has not been found guilty, and had that finding upheld on appeal. Yes, there may be (and most likely are) those who were convicted but are factually innocent, but the system would grind to a halt if at some point we were not able to say we did our best with what we had.

Answer to Question 1: To be honest, no one can give you 100 percent assurance that 100 percent of everyone on death row is guilty. However, your question seems to imply that unless and until we can do so, no one should be sentenced to death. Applying that logic, of course, and taking it to its conclusion, since we have no assurance that 100 percent of the persons in prison are guilty in fact, then there should be no prisons.

Uhhh strawman big time... Death is final---you do know that don't you?

Answer to Question 2: Your question makes an unwarranted assumption that everyone who supports the death penalty wishes it to be applied to everyone who is currently on death row. There is no connection between the two. There is a difference between support for the death penalty in general, and the decision that it should be applied in a particular case. Simply because of its finality, I believe there should be strong safeguards against the use of the death penalty, and I am dismayed at the watering down of the procedural safeguards already in place. But this does not change my support for the death penalty in a proper case. So it appears it is not "all or none" as you suggest.

Ok---until then we'll just take our chances---what? until we get it right.

Answer to Question 3: Of course executing an innocent person is murder. Of course, much will depend on what you mean by "innocent." Like it or not, our jury system is arguably the best way we poor human beings have found yet to determine guilt or inncocence. There is no one on death row who has not been found guilty, and had that finding upheld on appeal. Yes, there may be (and most likely are) those who were convicted but are factually innocent, but the system would grind to a halt if at some point we were not able to say we did our best with what we had.

"we did our best with what we had"..

LOL--imagine you sitting in death row innocent and somebody told you that. Sorry Pal--we're gonna kill you anyway cause we aint perfect.

In a nutshell---you admit that the system is flawed but hey.. who gives a shit cause it's the best we got. Ugg!

As I age, I become more and more skeptical about the death penalty. But, the one case that always turns my head is Ted Bundy. He was captured several times and escaped, killing more each time. Many say that the problem is to correct the mistakes that allowed him to escape but he an example of, probably, being smarter than the system. I think that in the Ted Bundy case, the death penalty was the absolute correct choice to keep him from hurting people.

Is it correct for everyone on death row? I doubt it. My main concern is that once a danger to society is in custody he/she should not be allowed to hurt anyone else ever again. If life in prison accomplishes that goal, I'm ok with it. If (as in the case of Ted Bundy), society actually is safer due to the death, then I think it is the right choice, unfortunately.

I have several thoughts on the Tookie Williams case but, to be honest, I don't know all of the details. I think he would have helped his case and proven himself worthy of life in prison if he had spoken out about other crimes he knew about and helped incarcerate those that he knows are still involved - that would have proven his point about gang activity being wrong and might sent the message loud and clear to current gang members that he was now against that type of lifestyle. As far as I know, he hasn't been a danger to society since he has been in prison although one report I heard said that prison officials thought he was still involved in the daily activities of gang life and was still in charge in some ways. I don't know if that is true or not - was it proven? He didn't admit to the four killings that he was convicted of but I don't know what evidence was presented in court. Is that evidence flaky? Do you believe he is innocent of the charges? (sincere question)

Again, I could easily be persuaded to be anti-death penalty --- until I think of the Bundy case. He deserved death since he was notorious for escaping and killing again and again. Tookie Williams? I truly don't know.

I guess my question is this: do I have to be rabid about the Death Penalty, as you suggest most/all are? Or can I look at it case by case and have differing opinions for different cases? :shrug:

With all the reasons to end the death penalty (and there are many) I really don't see why this subject is even up for debate here, of all places.

Savages.

reason enough for me to oppose the death penalty.

In my opinion, the death penalty is not justice -- it is revenge.

Flamefest