I thought this thread was about capital punishment.
Why are you so combative? You think the only opinions that matters, in an open discussion forum, are the people's who make the rules? What kind of logic is that? With that line of thinking, why do you yourself post? I simply asked a question.
@StumpTownStu
I made a response to mugg's comment about facts and liberals in this thread.I didn't quote you,I didn't mention you,it had nothing to do with you.I know what this thread was about,I was just responding to what mugg posted.You didn't need to post to tell me what the thread was about,but you felt the need to respond,so I responded back.My post wasn't made to be combative,it was just made to tell you I wasn't posting my 1st response to you or what the thread was originally about.It was a reply to mugg's statement,so what you think or thought about my post was irrelevant to me.
Of course the "only opinions that matter in an open discussion forum" aren't just for the people who make the rules.Nor are the opinions that matter just for anybody who has posted in the thread,who thinks they get to decide what somebody else should reply too.
@StumpTownStu
I'll answer your question from a few back, the answer is unfortunately NO, a killer of children does not deserve the death penalty because if even ONE innocent person dies from capital punishment then it has lost its purpose in society. If a single innocent person dies due to the existence of the death penalty then it should never be allowed to exist, Luckily it has been stopped in many states and it should be outlawed from the federal government and stopped completely.
I say this as someone who is deeply angered at the cruelty of human nature and how anyone would decide to take a life of another, but with atrocious crimes that awful people commit it does not equate to allowing the death penalty to exist given that even ONE has died who was innocent and we know many more have died than just one.
@wallstreetcappers
How many innocent people have been executed in the modern era? I mean thise unquestionably innocent. How many executed have been posthumously exonerated?
My brother Midnight posted an item about Marcellus Williams, as if an innocent man had been executed. While I have utmost love and respect for my bro, I have to say, if one reads up on the story, Marcellus Williams was probably guilty. The Innocence Project would have you believe that there was no physical evidence but there actually was.
@StumpTownStu
You cant just look at the modern era alone you have to judge the concept from its origin and that means the death penalty since its existence. But in the modern era to me the standard is all or none and that means if a single person has died that was innocent then the entire enterprise has to be eliminated. Our justice system and in totality the foundation of this country is based on all created equal that everyone deserves a fair and honest prosecution and that truth does matter and stands as the most important principal that we demand and that we give to every citizen. So given that there have been innocent people who have died from the use of various death penalty methods, to me it cannot exist. I think that the disgusting criminals who kill and harm deserve what was done to them and MORE, I still cannot support the death penalty given that ANY life was taken that was innocent.
But has a single innocent person died? Innocent people have been exonerated. Has anyone innocent been put the death?
My opinion :
There are no lives that are more innocent that are unjustly executed than the lives that are killed during abortions .
you say about the death penalty :
“ that even if ONE innocent person dies from capital punishment then it has lost it’s purpose in society …. “
and that “ then it should never be allowed to exist … “
But aren’t ALL the lives killed by abortion innocent ?
not trying to attack . Attempting to discern the differences in your view among the two ending of life scenarios .
if you can clearly and concisely explain , fine , if not , that’s fine too .
Just trying to get to the crux of your ultimate logic .
@StumpTownStu
I think that there is little searching being done for historical deaths, that takes resources and time and we have such a backlog of cases that exist of living citizens who are seeking review that I doubt there will ever be comprehensive information about innocents. Ive seen online some figures ranging from 40 to 200 plus but who really knows?
What I do know is our past with regards to rights to minorities in prosecution is abhorrent, many many minorities have been put in jail based on lies and unjust prosecution, juries that are biased etc...that means our legal system was and is wrecked and that means it extends all the way to the death penalty cases. Id suggest that even the existence of the death penalty as a location in a prison should be eliminated as there have been way too many reversals and proven misjustices. To me a single death, even one means we cant have the potential exist and that unfortunately it means that thousands of lousy cruddy disgusting people live the balance of their life in prison off the taxpayer expense.
By that reasoning, you'd have to eliminate ALL jury trials as well...I mean, it may be a jury of the peers, at least it's intentions, but jury's get it wrong all the time...you are asking 12 strangers to decide someones fate on fact based testimony where the trial generally muddies the waters not cleans it...the objections and over ruled and disregard what was last said doesn't work unless you are strictly fact driven or law based individual...based on the entire system, it is flawed to the fullest just in shear principle of what is being asked of 12 individuals who could most likely care less and have no repercussions if they get it wrong...flawed system....plus, each individual juror has it's own prejudices against police or those accused based on their own possible experience....
To me, the idea of capital punishment is deter those from committing crimes....yes, some innocent people may die and have died, but that's not because of capital punishment but rather the judicial system as a whole... the greater good of what it entails represents a deterrent....that's the whole idea in an imperfect world....if speeding tickets were $5000 or $10,000 each time no matter how fast you were going over the speed limit would you still drive fast? Some still would, but the cost of it would just about kill most average citizens....
Something has to be in place to deter the criminals....in an imperfect world with an imperfect judicial system there has to be some innocent lives lost because of how the system presents itself...what you should have is 12 expert jurors not 12 random people...
I’ve always thought this one tends to ring true “ Conservatives believe the economy functions better if the rich have more money and everyone else has less. But they're wrong. It's just the opposite”
Your game selections are doing pretty good! Gl next Sunday! 
Trumps MAGAT’s insurrection attempt to the deaths of at least 3 people and severely injuring many policemen on January 6th 2021…..Next you’ll be saying they just visited the capital to sat hello for The Orange stain !
Ma'am, this is a Wendy's.
This is what i'm getting at. No system is perfect. With that said, we have seen the innocent exonerated. Ans while the loss of years, and often decades, can't be returned, we have seen the system get it right. Likewise, we can't unequivocally say an innocent inmate has been executed in the past. They aren't flipping switches left and right. The process allows for ample opportunity for appeal, for the presentation of new evidence, for vindication. So why does someone guilty behind a shadow of a doubt, not just in the courts eyes, but literally guilty of heinous crimes in smoking gun cases, why do these monsters get to live? Why is James Holmes still alive? Why did another inmate have to kill Jeffrey Dahmer? Why does the sick bastard I spoke of earlier, who raped and murdered a child and her mother, wby does he get three hots, a cot, books, possibly a cell phone, for his entire life?
Without deterrent, what keeps a potential murderers from committing a heinous act? How about the illegals that killed 12yo Jocelyn Nungaray? Are they now just gonna run biz from a jail cell? Why should they be allowed to breath anymore? I don't believe every crime deserves the death penalty, but it absolutely needs to be on the table as a deterrent. If even one innocent life can be saved because of it, then it's worth it.
They aren't rapist and murderers, they'll asylum seekers. They deserve clemency and and citizenship.
You can't change 200+ years of history...the rich will always have a benefit that the others do not...it's just the way it is and you can see it in just about every other country as well...wealth is powerful and will continue to dominate....go against them and see what happens...keep dreaming if anyone believes this changes in our lifetime or ever really...
@ABooksNightmare
I see you mention this sort of thing from time to time. It is not completely true that you had to be 'wealthy', per se. You simply had to own land.
For example:
My question to you is do you understand what Adams said about this when he was questioned about it? Because at this point he has mostly been proven correct in all of his presuppositions on this issue.
Do you agree with him? Why? Or why not?
Do you think the country (not any particular individual) is better off or worse off under either situation? Or is it simply a personal preference?
@Raiders22
You are correct, white male landowners, but essentially it would be hard pressed to not mention that anyone who owned land back in those times would have been considered wealthy...so, to the letter of the law, yes, white male landowners...I just cut to the chase and indicate it is the wealthy because you would be hard pressed to find a landowner that was not considered wealthy in those times...
Adams said:
May 26, 1776
It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the [agreement] of the people, but to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must [agree] to every act of legislation?...
Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who [are poor and do not own property], are also [unfamiliar] with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? …Few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest.
Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open [such a] source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to [change] the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a [dime], will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and [surrender] all ranks, to one common level.
He was right. Once you open it up it never stopped. Every person or group that was excluded cried foul and demanded rights to vote. The system was created based on British ideology who only allowed landowners to vote. Something that had been in place long before America...They believed that property owners were better voters because most may have had a larger stake in the political decisions that were made based on the fact that they owned land. It was believed that allowing others to vote, other than landowners, would cause a problem of those groups being easily manipulated, thus causing voting to become diluted for its intended purpose. They were right. Look at it now.
I do think it is challenging to have everyone voting. Not all people are considered intelligent nor rational enough to make good sound decisions because it is a matter of opinion not for the greater good of the people.This is why voting is diluted. It's muddy at best. And, to think that it only comes down to a few swing states each election year now is mind blowing. It makes voting non relevant in may states. Sure, you have your regional/state voting aspects, but is that even for the greater good. If you do not understand what voting entails and only vote foe selfish purposes then why vote or why be allowed to vote. Doesn't mean that the educated and well off can do any better, but in all aspects it takes zero intelligence or knowledge to vote and so how does that benefit the people? I have mentioned this several times before as well, voting just to vote is ridiculous to me. Serves no purposes and goes against everything of what was originally thought to be the objective.
Why should a society accept the outcome of people who do not care to learn about the issues or care about how it will effect those for the greater good when they vote. Voting is another selfish act and has become a joke in the way it is handled. Just because one can vote does not mean that they should if they are just doing so to dos so. What purpose does that serve? And if the Presidency only comes down to one or two states because of the electoral system, then what is that telling the people? It tells me it only matters in a few areas and the rest of the country can pound sand.
I've talked a lot about how broken the system is. From the politicians themselves, corrupt business backing/funding, electoral votes and whether one should vote if you like neither candidate. Voting just because you do not like one candidate over another but still do not like the candidate you are voting for is ridiculous. I believe this is where a vast majority lie with this election for sure. Makes no sense. Take a stand and don't vote for either and when the system sees that it had poor voter turnout then ask themselves why this is. Then they will see that we need to do better as a country and as a people to turn this around. The two party system is trash and only divides people with hate and disgust. The common people cannot decipher what is good for the people anymore except what is good for themselves.
System needs to be revamped in a big way...too many problems everywhere you look....
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
