Dim is better than off IMHO. "Murder" as you would call it is your opinion. Nothing more.

Punishment is the death penalty. It is not "murder". It is not to set an example. It is the ultimate form of punishment. Capital Punishment.

You go ahead with your murderous ranting... done with you. You just want to see people killed and could care less who they are.

(double post)

More opinion. And you are welcome to it. As I am mine.:rolleyes:

Seems to me you're putting them out of their misery. Let's see, endure years of being butt-fucked in the mouth, or get a shot so you can drift peacefully away?

Totally callous joke, but there are those who would say death is not a punishment.

we could solve this with a 30 cent bullet

You could slip them a razor and then later wonder where it came from....

Yes, but that's your problem.

Everyone executed has been proven guilty by the legal system. Saying the legal system can't be 100% perfect does not mean the must be executing innocent people. If they are in your state then do something about it. I'm comfortable with mine.

Bruce is right, it just says there will be a chance that you will execute an innocent person, not that you will. We probably wouldn't know if we executed an innocent person anyways.

I am against captial punishment because I don't see the need of killing someone. Let them perform community service and manuel labor for the rest of their lives, it will at least be useful.

Nice comfy thought but I don't think I want guys on death row doing community service.

Oh, Bruce. The possibility exists that an innocent person could be executed. Point-Blank Question: Do you agree? Yes or No?

Going on the offensive, huh? Nice.

Well, certain community servicies.

I was thinking more on the lines of cleaning up communities and making it look nicer, writing books for kids, making music, and giving speeches at schools to help avoid the path that they took. The personal community service is obviously off-limits.

You don't have to tell me "Bruce is right" - he just repeated what I've been saying that all along.

The fact that we wouldn't specifically know an innocent person was executed doesn't mean it couldn't happen, or render it "okay" via anonymity.

I skipped through the middle part because it looked like you were going over the same thing.

I thought you said that it was inevitable that we would kill an innocent person and I disagreed with that. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Yea, John Wayne Gracy writing kids books, that would be a hit... :D

Fuck your yes or no, you don't tell me my options, I told you that before.
Not everything can be broken down to simple flow charts, in the real world. The real world has too many variables for that.

I don't believe my state is going to execute any innocent people. I said that before, also.
If you have some moral objections to executing criminals, don't do it.

What is wrong with the formulation of Flint's question? Is there something misleading about the question itself? Are there more options than yes or no? If so, what are they?

If I accept his yes/no ultimatum, then I'm accepting his whole flow chart. I don't.

Why not? What premise are you objecting to?

the real world is not that simple. If you want to flow chart it, go ahead and get back to me in a hundred years.

The conclusion.

He doesnt like the conclusion, so he has to reject the whole flow. He cant find where the logic doesn't work, so he starts at the top.

No problem. If I mis-worded aything to give you that impression, at any point, I officially retract it and apologize for the misunderstanding.

Getting it yet, Bruce?

But what premise is oversimplified? Where is the complication that invalidates the question?

I can't give a link but it has been done already and from what I've heard, has been effective as well.

And, to be specific, the conclusion is NOT that you shouldn't support the Death Penalty or the Death Penalty is just plain wrong.
The conclusion is something very specific: the literal conclusion of a simple, logical analysis of known factors. It is not an opinion or a feeling.

Saying the legal system, being a system, can not be perfect means anyone supporting the death penalty supports killing innocent people is bullshit.

Yes is an option, like it or not. No, does not mean there is a possibility.
First, the legal system deals with more than death penalty cases.
Second, attention and care is allocated by the seriousness of the consequences.
Traffic tickets, you pay or go to court, lose and you have one appeal.
Death penalty cases are long and complicated with many mandatory appeals and reviews, designed to check and correct any mistakes along the way. It would take a bunch of mistakes, unchecked and uncorrected, and that's not happening.
I can make wrong turns on the way to work and still get to the right place.
So no, I don't buy because it's not 100% infallible they are going to execute any innocent people. That is not a given.

No must about it. That's only true if I buy your previous premise and I don't.That's not true either.
Why, because I must accept your logic, you carefully constructed to lead to where you want it to go? No, I believe your logic is flawed. Like many things that make sense when you simplify to a few generalities, but don't actually work in the real world because that's not simple.

You can object to the Death penalty on moral grounds, if you wish, but the basis of executing innocents doesn't pass muster.

Yeah but what if you do kill someone who's innocent?

You can't, the court says they are guilty before they are executed.

They've already gone back and DNA-proved a bunch of people that were executed (mostly in Texas) were innocent...

A court finding someone to be guilty is not the same as them being guilty.

Do you believe that there is a ZERO PERCENT chance of executing an innocent person: Yes or No...??? Can you answer this direct question?

I don't dispute it has happened, especially in Texas and other places where there is racial tension. What I said was I don't believe PA is going to execute any innocent people and I support the death penalty.

I told you I'm not playing that game. I already told you I think your methodology is flawed and why. I've already stated my position in favor of the death penalty and why.

Yes it is. Volunteer groups are continually finding evidence that was missing, ignored, or suppressed during trial and exonerating people who have exhausted their appeals. Six in PA, just two fewer than Texas. Innocent convicts not lucky enough to get that volunteer attention (or not lucky enough for the real killer to have left DNA evidence, or not lucky enough for any evidence from the trial to have been properly stored, etc.) have been and will continue to be executed.

"& don't you dare bring logic into it" LOL!

Not just volunteer groups, the system is reversing convictions too.
Six in PA.
Wilson got a new trial because he didn't have enough black jurors and the state said in the retrial they couldn't go for the death penalty again. Then they did a DNA test that showed there was another person at the crime seen besides him and the multiple victims.

Yarris is a scumbag that should have been executed. He caused his own problems by trying to frame some one else for his own gain, then telling them he was there when he wasn't.

Kimball was freed when they found out someone else could possibly have killed the four people. Not that the person did or Kimball didn't. The system corrected itself.

Nieves case went to the PA Supreme Court being a capital case. They ruled he was not represented properly. The system worked as it should, that's why capital cases are long and involved with all kinds of reviews.

Smith's case was bizarre, with the lead investigator taking money from Joseph Wambaugh, to provide inside information for his novel. Here again, the system corrected itself when the high court stepped in. I still think that sob is guilty.

Ferber was freed when the DA found new evidence shortly after the trial and urged the judge to grant a new trial. The system corrected itself this time by the prosecutors action.

I'm not sure about Wilson, but I don't see any evidence of volunteers in the other cases.
Oh, and none of them were executed even though I think two of them should be.

Faulty logic.

The courts have been wrong before and they will be again. That means innocent people have been and will be killed in future thanks to the death penalty.

Aside from my own moral objections which I've stated before so am not going to worry about saying them again.

That's why death penalty cases make repeated trips through the system, by law, Ali.

and still innocent people have been put to death.

Anyway, that's all I want to say about the subject. All due respect to the rest of you, please carry on. :)

Not on my watch