Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Dan Patrick
2917 Followers
Dan Patrick
2917 Followers
Mark Frost
2693 Followers
Mark Frost
2693 Followers
SleepingZombie
332 Followers
SleepingZombie
332 Followers
infestusAug 3, 2010
This happens literally every year in Texas. They kill someone then dna is used and surprise surprise they were innocent all along! whoops our bad!
lolcoelacanthAug 4, 2010
We shouldn't be so immediately trusting of DNA evidence, as it CAN be faked.
spacem00seAug 4, 2010
Fingerprints can be faked, DNA is so much harder to do. Not even identical twins share the same DNA.
variouspicklesAug 4, 2010
Yes, you could conceivably plant another persons hair at a crime scene, but its quite a bit harder to do that with blood or semen. Also, just because it happens in movies doesn't mean it happens in real life.
DNA "matches" aren't performed by literally matching the entire sequence of the people[s] chromosomes. A number of markers are matched instead. The odds of two people having identical sets are astronomical.
lolcoelacanthAug 4, 2010
One can simulate that though
goketteAug 4, 2010
@spacem00se
Identical twins do have the same DNA. Now if you were referring to sharing in the sense that 5-year-olds should share their toys, I'd agree. However, as I doubt that's the case, you and the people who dugg you have absolutely no knowledge of even basic biology.
Identical twins don't have the same fingerprints however =)
rkthoadanAug 4, 2010
Actually, the identical twin DNA issue is getting quite interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html
zenmojoAug 4, 2010
No one is actually sequencing your DNA. Humans have 99.9% of the same genome. So people instead check particular loci on your DNA, which is where things get really f**ked up.
What most people don't realize is that in one Maryland study, 1 out of 30,000 people whose DNA was tested by STR measurement (the kind of DNA analysis done today) had the same markers. Maryland has a population of 6 million which means there were 2000 people within a two hour drive of each other with identical DNA markers. What gets even more interesting, or disturbing or what have you, is that people with twins in their family are more likely to have easily reproducible markers and in this study they had a rate of 22 false matches out of 1,000, or 2.2 out of 100. Meaning you have about a 2.2% chance of identifying the wrong person if they have a high incidence of twins and triplets in their family. That's a greater chance than your condom failing on you with proper usage during sex. And we're talking a person's life.
Basically, with a global population of 6+ trillion people, DNA evidence is useless except for the purpose of excluding criminals from the scene, which is why prosecutors are wary of using it and why results are sometimes fabricated in order to produce convictions. The reason you keep finding people who are acquitted by DNA is because no prosecutor actually wants to use it in front of an educated jury.
DNA can't nail you for a crime, it can only exonerate you (unless you're in Maryland and, as one serial rapist did, someone plants DNA on the rape victim that just so happens to match you and the 1,999 other people within a 100-200 mile radius of the scene of a crime).
andrewjcAug 4, 2010
DNA evidence is not in and of itself a conviction. But in conjunction with other factors, it can be one more thing that convinces a jury. It's easy to point out that 200 other people within a two-hour drive could be responsible for what happened, but it's not so easy to explain why 200 other people are connected to the victim in the same way that you were, were they able to prove such connections.
myrthAug 4, 2010
6+ trillion people - did we colonize the galaxy while i was sleeping? :)
ikorkyiAug 4, 2010
[citation needed]
oatmealbatman2Aug 4, 2010
@ IKORKYI
I believe he said that a condom fails less than 2.2% of the time, so in that respect, you are in agreement.
wrath017Aug 4, 2010
You had me until 6+ trillion.
faskippyAug 4, 2010
No it doesn't.
eh123Aug 4, 2010
Actually, it does not "literally happen every year". In fact, wrongful executions in the US are exceedingly rare.
zenmojoAug 4, 2010
"Proven" wrongful executions are exceedingly rare. Which requires both an investigation AFTER someone has died and that the governor, who is the final word in who lives and dies in the capital system, not interfere and that someone is willing to do the footwork.
As seen in Illinois, when is it ever the system that investigates their own wrongful executions? It is most likely going to be unpaid volunteers and curious scholars who carry out the practice, and even then usually for those currently on death row, not people who are already dead.
roborayAug 4, 2010
[citation needed]
spacemanspiff22Aug 4, 2010
RoboRay, why don't you [citation needed] the guy he was responding to, who made the first outlandish claim? Oh right, because you agree with his lack of facts. Sorry for the mixup.
ohitsdomAug 4, 2010
Here here, spaceman.
princedapimp4Aug 4, 2010
f**k texas
lanfordrAug 4, 2010
Only one of the 10 cases took place in Texas. In fact, 4 of the case took place in the U.K. So it would be more appropriate to say "f**k U.K."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
alcimedesAug 4, 2010
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
rblancarteAug 4, 2010
"Literally" happening ... debatable. However, I will give some citations of 5 people executed in the last 20 years:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent
veriixAug 4, 2010
Literally...you keep using that word, I don't think you know what it means.
zirchxworldAug 4, 2010
sounds more like a problem with Texas getting solid convictions than capital punishment.
/my opinion
aeroforce129Aug 4, 2010
"You know the good part about all those executions in Texas? Fewer Texans." -Carlin
I know it doesn't really add to the discussion, but I just couldn't help it.
soc7Aug 3, 2010
The death penalty may or may not be a deterrent to crime but it can be a deterrent to justice. Permanently if you're the one being wrongfully executed.
grammerpantsAug 4, 2010
It isn't a deterrent to crime, why would it be? Justify it as justices not as a deterrent for criminals.
hu99Aug 4, 2010
What the f**k did you just say? English, motherf**ker. Do you speak it?!?
grammerpantsAug 4, 2010
Yeah I don't know what the hell I was on about with that one.
danj484Aug 4, 2010
That grammar is pants.
trythinking1stAug 4, 2010
@GrammarPants, I think you wanted to say "Justify it as justice, not as a deterrent for criminals"
i.e. Don't use the excuse that it is a deterrant to crime, just tell it like it is, Justice.
Sound right?
rollwitdiggAug 4, 2010
One thing you can say about the death penalty is that the people put to death never kill again. So in a way it is a deterrent.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Neither do the people serving life sentences.
mcquittyAug 4, 2010
People serving life sentences are more likely to kill in prison. There's little deterrent left. Look at people like Jeffrey Dahmer's killer. Who would do it? Someone about to get out or someone who never will?
rain12913Aug 4, 2010
Anybody who believes in the death penalty is an immoral person. I make and stand by this statement not because of any ideological opposition I may have towards the death penalty, but because it's been consistently proven that numerous innocent people have been executed. If executing criminals, versus simply detaining them for life without chance of parole, is so important to you that you're willing to risk putting to death innocent people like me and my family, you are a completely immoral person.
lolcoelacanthAug 4, 2010
Okay, but aside from the fact that we make mistakes in sentencing what problems do you have with the death penalty?
rain12913Aug 4, 2010
As I clearly said in my post, that's not the discussion I wanted to start, mainly because it's extremely complex and it's one that involves such deeply-seated ideological beliefs that it often leads to nowhere.
Also, if you had understood my point, you'd realize that your question is moot. All that matters is that we cannot ensure that innocent people will not be executed.
zirchxworldAug 5, 2010
so your argument is against the people who support the death penalty and not the death penalty itself? what kind of s**t argument is that? i think youd be better off doing the opposite because convincing someone they are completely immoral is impossible. but convincing someone the death penalty is immoral... maybe if you had a really good argument.
hey guys i dont wanna argue against marijuana, i just wanna argue against the people who want to legalize it.
/>.> give me a breakkk
factorof13Aug 4, 2010
I mostly agree, but depending on the circumstances, I think there should be exceptions for people who confess.
gordon2108Aug 4, 2010
Confessions, oddly enough, are hardly rock solid evidence that someone actually committed a crime.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/police-interrogation1.htm
skinny01Aug 4, 2010
Confessions are easily coerced using various means. Some people think they have to pick what they're told are the lesser of two evils, even when they're completely innocent.
alextottiAug 4, 2010
Then nobody would confess, people who legitimately confess should be shown more mercy I think.
cerebronAug 4, 2010
Is a miserable, rapey life in prison really more moral than death?
trainofthought6Aug 4, 2010
Absolutely not, but that's another entire face of the problem.
emjayseaAug 4, 2010
No, but as someone else pointed out, death puts justice permanently out of your reach.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
@Anybody who believes that we should have a death penalty is an immoral person
You forgot to add that they're poo-poo heads and doody faces too. /s Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
grammerpantsAug 4, 2010
Because our system fails sometimes, does not make me a immoral person for supporting the death penalty, that is just stupid.
entropyfanAug 4, 2010
actually, it does. You support a system that has been shown to murder innocent bystanders.
How are you not immoral to support the murder of innocent bystanders?
Not to mention your chances of being put to death are directly related to your race, economic standing, and ability to gain competent legal council.
So yes, to support such a system is immoral.
grammerpantsAug 4, 2010
I also support the police, and "the troops". Sometimes they do the wrong thing (and innocents get killed), supporting them overall does not make me immoral.
entropyfanAug 4, 2010
The heat of battle or the stress involved in police work (where honest mistakes can be made in the chaos of the moment) are *VASTLY* different than the death penalty.
In Death penalty cases, there is no threat. The person is contained and rendered harmless. It is outright murder.
If police or military personnel are convicted of wrongful actions, they are punished like every other criminal.
Ever heard of a prosecutor facing the death penalty because they f**ked up and convicted an innocent?
Vastly different.
trainofthought6Aug 4, 2010
"If police or military personnel are convicted of wrongful actions, they are punished like every other criminal."
Either you're naive, or I'm too damn cynical. Policemen nearly always stick up for each other, we hear about it time and time again.
tsothaAug 4, 2010
"Anybody who believes that we should have a death penalty is an immoral person."
That's just wrong. You have a very juvenile view of morality.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rain12913Aug 4, 2010
Well I'm glad that you were able to contribute to this debate. I look forward to your next thoughtful insight regarding a matter on which we disagree.
tsothaAug 4, 2010
Debate? If your idea was to stimulate reasoned discussion with that opening sentence, you're a bigger moron than I thought.
oatmealbatman2Aug 4, 2010
"Anybody who believes that we should have a death penalty is an immoral person."
That statement, read exactly as is, has a gap in logic. The death penalty, according to you, is not inherently morally wrong. You justify your argument based on its results. You fail to consider the possibility of imposing the death penalty in a future where this problem of wrongful convictions does not exist. I believe you meant to say was, "Anybody who believes that we should continue to have the death penalty in today's society is an immoral person." Words matter.
wizardmaster420Aug 4, 2010
the people who are the strongest supporters of the death penalty are usually people who will say government can't do anything right, suck my dead pig
mcquittyAug 4, 2010
Taking the devil's advocate:
And the people who believe in abortion are typically the same people who don't want people to own guns.
rain12913Aug 4, 2010
@mcquitty: Except that one doesn't work. What relevance do the two things have with one another? With Wizard's example, it's interesting that most people who support the government's right to execute people usually contend that the government is generally bad at doing anything and its power should be kept at a minimum.
zirchxworldAug 4, 2010
Rain12913:
How do you know that capital punishment is not the excpetion? your just agreeing with the blind assumption that people who oppose "big government" also oppose capital punishment and thats not the case.
wizardmaster420Aug 4, 2010
that isn't what rain said at all
thesonofdarwinAug 4, 2010
I can't believe you are being dugg down. As an atheist with allegedly a "twisted view on morality" how is the view that ONE dead innocent is one too many seen as radical?
Vengeance should never outweigh the riskiness of wrongful murder. Never.
tsothaAug 4, 2010
It's not radical, it's just impractical. You can only arrive at that conclusion by assuming victims have no right to justice.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Tsotha- And you can only arrive at that conclusion by assuming the removal of the death penalty equates to the removal of all justice.
tsothaAug 4, 2010
"All" justice? No. But justice in many cases. If a family member were murdered, under some circumstances I would consider anything less than execution to be an injustice.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hivoltage815Aug 4, 2010
How can you not believe he is being buried given the fact that we have the death penalty in this country? Obviously a lot of people don't think its immoral, and that is only one viewpoint.
zirchxworldAug 4, 2010
statistically speaking, its envitable and impossible for it not to happen. To fix this problem I don't think we should just trash caital punishment all together but instead work on improving law enforcement counties and what not. Because a wrongful conviction really only deals with the prosecutors and court folk etc.
getting rid of capital punishment over wrongful convictions is really like "shooting the messenger" because the message came from the courts and judge that they have been sentenced to death. the mistake lies upon the defense, criminal, judge and jury but mostly just the lawyers.
A good solution however, would be for those who are sentenced to death be sentenced to death only after DNA analysis has linked them to the crime and been proven in a court of law. which is usually the case but with circumstansial convictions i sort of see some problems, but still doesn't mean the whole punishment should be scraped.
dennycraineAug 4, 2010
What none of the pro-death penalty diggers in here seem to get is that not only is it wrong because innocent people die, it's also wrong because we should *never* give the state the right to murder it's citizens. That's a horrible power to grant to a system as broken as the government. And as for "justice" to the family of murdered people? Well what about the families of those innocent people in this article? They were murdered, do we get to murder everyone involved in their execution? Two wrongs don't make a right children, and killing a murderer won't bring the victims back.
thesonofdarwinAug 7, 2010
As I said, capital punishment is not "justice" it's vengeance, plain and simple. It should not even be up for discussion that vengeance outweighs the need to stop the murder of one innocent.
The only way it could be seen as justice is through religious context where you believe eternal damnation will be waiting. That is not how our justice system ought to work.
Denny brings up a perfectly valid example. Should the family of a victim be murdered when they participate in the conviction and murder of another innocent?
trythinking1stAug 4, 2010
"Anybody who believes that we should have a death penalty is an immoral person"
What about countries where immoral people get the death penalty? Because that *does* happen.
Bringing "morality" into this just fuzzies the issues. Separation of church and state bub.
Also, thats a pretty grandiose, all encompassing statement, and as you know...all generalizations are false.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
skinny01Aug 4, 2010
I think the key problem is the current death penalty and the whole system the way it is that allows these mistakes to happen. If somehow (probably not likely) it could be 100% foolproof, then it may be good. But the way humans are in combination with the system, it's completely flawed.
hellicusAug 4, 2010
I politely disagree with your statement.
There's tons of people that deserve to die.
kordox3Aug 4, 2010
That wasn't the point.
mcquittyAug 4, 2010
Hell, according to digg, the following people qualify:
G. W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Palin
Tony Snow
etc.
rain12913Aug 4, 2010
Nice strawman. If you don't know what that means: I never said that there aren't people who deserve to die, nor even that there aren't people who deserve to die at the hands of the government. I purposefully took no stance on these issues because they are irrelevant when it comes to this debate. All that is relevant is whether or not you're willing to give your government the power to choose whether you should die or not.
rain12913Aug 4, 2010
add to that last sentence: given the undeniable evidence that they have executed numerous innocent people and the sheer impossibility of ever ensuring that future false positives will not occur.
pocketsaltAug 4, 2010
AND I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL!
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Someone cannot judge someone based on one ideology. That is like saying, "People who believe in religion are naive". I just hate seeing so many people dig you up because they agree with your closed minded belief...
disasterfaceAug 4, 2010
that's ridiculous. of course someone can judge someone based on one ideology. i bet you do it all the time. If I told you that I believe that the white race is the superior race, you would probably judge me.
rain12913Aug 4, 2010
Perhaps I shouldn't have worded it as "you are an immoral person if you believe that we should have a death penalty," but instead as "it is immoral to believe that we should have a death penalty." I stand corrected, but still stand by the latter articulation of my position.
lostsymphonies1Aug 4, 2010
How about if the murders are caught on tape?
araytaAug 4, 2010
The doesn't always work either, since on-tape identities can always be mistaken.
emjayseaAug 4, 2010
There's a Kevin Spacey movie on exactly that subject. (And which you are probably referring to.)
ruddy4Aug 4, 2010
Now you have an incentive to forge video clips..
libertarianslolAug 4, 2010
Hey now. My right to satisfy my blood lust is more important than making sure innocent people aren't murdered by the state.
pandaxrageAug 4, 2010
I think if there are enough credible eye witnesses, security footage, or physical proof that without a doubt proves the fact that John Doe raped little Timmy and then cut his head off, then by all means throw John Doe to the firing squad. It's such a slippery slope that I think it's unfair to make a statement like, "Anybody who believes that we should have a death penalty is an immoral person." That's just being close minded.
gnixon70Aug 4, 2010
But it makes him feel morally superior I bet
disasterfaceAug 4, 2010
so we should have a second trial with a totally different justice system and standard of proof to determine if someone can be executed? otherwise, how are you going to determine if it meets your standard? are you the one who gets to decide?
rain12913Aug 4, 2010
The problem lies in the fact that, as you said, there is quite a slippery slope there. How are we to possibly legislate "sufficient evidence"? Furthermore, isn't that what we have in place now? All (or most) of the cases where these innocent people were executed were cases in which the government was adequately satisfied that the person was guilty. The problem, as I said, is that no matter how difficult you make it to convict somebody, there will always be the very real possibility that innocents will be executed.
jridge327Aug 4, 2010
By your logic, law enforcement in all forms should be repealed, as should our legal system, as neither is flawless. Grow up. Life isn't always fair, and the number of innocents who get prosecuted and punished is negligible; they just get a lot of noisy press from the same people who blather useless platitudes like, "If it saves just one life..." Well, eliminating cars and locking everyone in their homes will save a lot more than one life. It's a child's view of the world to damn the essential pruning of the species for naive sentiments. This is coming from a dude who's spent time in jail for something he didn't do, by the way. Nothing's perfect; nobody's perfect. That's been true since the beginning of time, and ever shall be.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rain12913Aug 4, 2010
"the number of innocents who get prosecuted and punished is negligible"
Stopped reading there. I notice you used the word "punished" instead of murdered by our government. The fact that you're willing to tolerate out government murdering any number of people sickens me. The difference between the death penalty and all the other things you mentioned (the normal penalties of the criminal justice system, driving in cars, etc.) is that the former involves the intentional execution of a person by the government. This isn't the government accidentally killing people or producing byproduct deaths that are a necessary evil. This is the government actively imprisoning and murdering people. You must see the difference.
zirchxworldAug 4, 2010
Rain12913:
Your not seeing it either. perhaps you should look up the definitions of capital punishment and murder and guess what yes, the difference is night and day. The government isn't murdering anyone, only people who murders others and in simple justice terms, "An eye for an eye.."
i say better to kill the scumbag instead of giving him life w/ parole every 3 years. what kind of justice is it when the victim does more time than the criminal!? thats immoral if you ask me.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rain12913Aug 4, 2010
Did you even read the submission or my original post? Apparently not, because the submission details how it has been proven beyond any doubt that numerous innocent people have been executed by the government. The discussion in this thread isn't about the discussion of murderers who are executed by the government, it's about these innocent people, and whether people are willing to continue supporting our government in executing people when they have previously executed innocents and will continue to do so. Furthermore, my original post mentioned sentencing people to life in prison WITHOUT the possibility of parole, so I'm not sure where your "parole every 3 years" contention comes into this.
Finally, I fail to see how a collective of people killing an innocent person in a methodological and premeditated way is not murder. Please explain this. Better yet, don't even come back because you can't possibly to have anything to contribute to this discussion if you're willing to weigh in without even reading any of it. I'd love to hear from someone who disagrees with me and isn't intellectually lazy, however.
zirchxworldAug 4, 2010
you are so dumb it really insults me as a human. These people at the time were believed to be GUILTY! not only believed, but were proved in court. there was more evidence leaning toward guilt than innocence and they cant be held responsible for murder when they acted based upon credible evidence (of the time, ie. witnesses, etc.) so your confusing intentional murder with the falsely accused and sure its their fault but at the time they had to act and they acted in good faith.
much like the good faith law where if you believe domestic abuse has occurred and you call it in and it turns out to be false, if you acted because you seriously believed a crime occurred you cannot be charged. so even if your wrong after the fact, something had to have been done for punishment.
keep in mind most falsely accused executions happened decades ago before DNA and various other scientific tools now available. wrongful convictions still happen but are very rare and here is what you cannot seem to understand..
punishing an innocent man to death who you believed (and proved in court) was guilty is not murder, its a mistake. if you don't understand my last sentence then your beyond help.
zirchxworldAug 5, 2010
you wanted an intelligent argument and im giving you one. whats the matter, cant respond?
your really just arguing an illogical fallacy where your ignoring all context of a situation. its like accusing a cop of molestation when he pats you down. its like accusing kidnap when you get hauled off to jail. you see my point..
so all your really saying is when government kills an innocent man thats murder. yet you ignore the FACT that he was proved guilty and then proved not guilty after death. its an honest mistake. much like when people believed the earth was flat. they weren't trying to deceive or lie to everyone but really just didn't know better. they found later they were wrong but they honestly didn't know better so thats why its called an honest mistake. so its not murder, its an honest mistake. and one that rarely happens.
Now, if YOU have anything worthy for a debatable defense then plz respond otherwise im gonna say i won this one.
thesonofdarwinAug 7, 2010
Now it's understandable why we have capital punishment, because people like ZIRCHxWORLD are involved with making decisions.
First, our justice system isn't and NEVER should be considered "eye for an eye."
"These people at the time were believed to be GUILTY! not only believed, but were proved in court."
BELIEF should not be involved with governmental slayings of its citizens. It was never proved that they were guilty. It was an emotional belief of the jury that damned these innocents.
It doesn't matter HOW rare the government murdering an innocent is, as I've said above, ***VENGEANCE*** should never rule out the risk of murdering innocent citizens. It's not justice, it's vengeance. Our current technology can not make the process foolproof nor do I ever see it reaching that point.
Taking an innocent life is not an "honest mistake." It's bad when murderers take the life of an innocent, but that wrongness suddenly dissipates when it's the government and juries? No.
Governments and citizens of other countries as well as our own have committed great atrocities working off the belief a group of people were bad.
zirchxworldAug 11, 2010
i said its more than belief its PROOF. you even have in teh quotes where i specifically said proved yet you ignored it. these men were PROVED guilty by our justice system. and then PROVED not guilty by the same system. what your arguing is that the system in which they were proved is weak and to your credit that may be a valid argument but you executed it very poorly.
your right its never going to be "foolproof" so what should we do about it? your suggestion is abolish the death penalty and no more wrongfully convicted (not innocent, yes, theres a difference) will be executed. your right no more wrongfully convicted will be executed if that were to happen but since you just said the system will never be "foolproof" then wrongfully convicted will still serve life sentences and what not. so the real problem lies in decreasing wrongful convictions (by using better tools, DNA etc.) and not by eliminating certain types of punishments.
if you spare a wrongfully convicted man the death penalty he is still wrongfully convicted. the way you fix it is by having better tools for conviction not by eliminating the death penalty. because a wrongfully convicted man who sits in jail for the rest of his life isn't much better than a wrongfully convicted man sentenced to death. and yet no one in this thread has addressed that issue.
zirchxworldAug 4, 2010
Well what about people who are sentenced to death and due to pressure demand the death penalty gets removed and now the criminal who deserved death is given a life sentence and is eligible for parole every couple years and may eventually get out... is that really more "moral"?
/Charles Manson anyone? and many many more..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rain12913Aug 4, 2010
Shame on you for not reading my original comment. I'll quote the part you've missed with the key part in brackets: "If executing criminals, versus simply [detaining them for life without chance of parole], is so important to you that you're willing to risk putting to death innocent people like me and my family then you are a completely immoral person."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zirchxworldAug 4, 2010
your quote is irrelevant. and further more is based on a piss-poor example. if you were convicted of murder or even involved in a murder than many more factors would come into play.
DNA is not enough for conviction, its simply the nail in the coffin. If you have a very strong case plus evidence than yes, that is proof in a court of law. mistakes happen and its important to know where the mistake is. the mistake is not the entire punishment but rather individual cases. a wrongful murder conviction is the fault of prosecuting lawyers not the principal of capital punishment because the falsely convicted would serve a "life sentence" instead of a "death sentence" and really is no better.
and shame on you sir for falsely accusing people of having no morals simply because they are unlike your own. you try and seem fair but i question how fair you really are when you make bold and bogus claims about ALL people who believe in the death penalty. that in itself is a fallacy of logic.
zirchxworldAug 5, 2010
what, no comeback?
rain12913Aug 5, 2010
Are you serious? I was out and just returned home; do you honestly think that I was just sitting around waiting for people to reply to my comments here? It's only been 5 hours since I was last on and you're giving me s**t for not responding to you quickly enough...that's just rich. I think I've done a pretty good job coming back several times and responding to people's responses to my original comment, so cut me some slack for not being here 24/7.
Anyway, nothing you've said in your most recent post has anything to do with your original post in which you stated the following: "...the criminal who deserved death is given a life sentence and is eligible for parole every couple years and may eventually get out...is that really more "moral"?"
Again, I made it very clear that the alternative to the death penalty that I'm discussing here is life in prison without any possibility of release or parole or anything like that. The guilty should remain in a cell until they die of natural causes. Whether this sort of punishment is one that is commonly given or not is a moot point, because I'm talking about how things ought to be, not how they are. My quote was perfectly relevant because you falsely suggested that I think it's moral for a murderer to receive parole while I in fact said no such thing.
The new argument which you made in your most recent post (which has nothing to do with what you originally said) is barely even worth addressing but I'll do so anyway since you seem to be so eagerly anticipating my response and I don't want to let you down.
In the first part of your argument, you argue that it is very difficult for a criminal to be sentenced to death, and that there must be a very strong case against such a person for this to happen. This very well may be the case (and I don't deny that it is); however, this is a completely moot point, since the focus of this article is that despite this supposedly sound system we have in place, innocent people STILL have been executed. It doesn't matter how hard it is to get the sentence if innocent people still get it.
The next part of your argument is that "mistakes happen" and that a wrongful murder conviction (and the resulting execution of an innocent person by the state) is not the fault of the state itself or of the institution of capital punishment but is the fault of a whole group of people including the judge and the prosecutors and such. Once again, this is all well and fine, but it has nothing to do with my argument. I never claimed that the death penalty is the reason that people are mistakenly found guilty of murder; I simply claimed that given the fact that people are indeed mistakenly found guilty of murder, it is immoral to support capital punishment because doing so would be to tolerate the possibility that innocent human beings are systematically killed by your government. That is immoral.
Your final point I will concede to you. This is the third time I've typed this in replies to my original comment there, but I'll say it again: I misspoke; what I should have said is that "it is immoral to support the death penalty given that there exists the very real possibility that innocent people will be executed (as they have been in the past)", rather than "you are an immoral person if you support the death penalty." I certainly do not believe the latter claim and it is indeed a logical fallacy, as you have pointed out. I hope you believe me when I say that I misspoke and that I don't actually believe that one is an immoral person if they support the death penalty. I simply believe that one holds an immoral belief if they support the death penalty.
I hope this response has been adequate.
zirchxworldAug 5, 2010
It is more immoral when a death row inmate is allowed to be eligible for parole than a death sentence. I say this as a victimology student who knows the victim's side. The entire criminal justice system is designed for criminals and criminal rights (right to an attorney, etc.) but really neglects victim's rights and victim's justice. It is completely immoral to have a person who breaks a very basic moral (shall not kill) and get more rights then the victim. is what my argument is. its immoral because the victim is doing a "death sentence" for a crime that happened to them and the suspect is doing a "life sentence" so they get the most valuable right of all, LIFE and plus they may even get freedom for "good behavior" after a long while. thats the argument you first attacked.
Okay your argument is that people with death sentences should get commuted to life in jail without parole. guess what, I AGREE! in a perfect system (obviously hypothetically) i would agree because these executions are EXPENSIVE to the tax payers and sure if we threw the key away i would be all for it but thats where the reality sets in..
my Charles Manson example illustrates this perfectly. heres a psycho who gets the death penalty and before his execution gets saved by public outcry for the abolishment of capital execution and is commuted to life in jail. but guess what he didn't get life without parole like me or you wanted, he just got life w/ parole. because thats the reality. yes he's a murderer but slipped through the gray area of the law and EVERY 3 YEARS gets a chance at a new beginning. he gets denied everytime o course only because he's charles manson but others have gotten out. oh yes, people who once were to be executed have been given life w/ parole and have gotten out... and guess what, they killed AGAIN. the only way to make sure a killer never gets out is to execute them which is why im for it.
so again in a perfect world i would agree with you completely that those convicted of murder never be let out but since we live in an imperfect society i say kill him and you never gotta worry about em getting out.
you even agree with me that the system is imperfect and we both admit that mistakes happen to innocent people no matter how hard we try to be fair. but your solution is to get rid of the death penalty so innocent people cant be executed and really it doesn't solve the problem. because sure an innocent man may be spared the death penalty but if he is wrongfully convicted he is still stuck in jail and the situation is still completely unfair.
this is your conclusion pulled from your own comment: "I simply claimed that given the fact that people are indeed mistakenly found guilty of murder, it is immoral to support capital punishment because doing so would be to tolerate the possibility that innocent human beings are systematically killed by your government." yet the fault has nothing to do with capital punishment. it deals entirely with a bungled prosecution. and i already argued that it is not immoral to support CP because these people were proved guilty and then proved not guilty postmortem and even if they weren't killed its still a huge mistake and wouldnt be much better for them. so if you really wanna hang on to your claim above, then i ask you, wouldnt life in jail without parole be JUST AS IMMORAL because "..given the fact that people are indeed mistakenly found guilty of [insert crime here], it is immoral to support [repeat crime here] because doing so would be to tolerate the possibility that innocent human beings are systematically [convicted] by your government." yet like i said before, why have faith in any of it if its not 100% certain? the reason is because it usually works 99% of the time and thats good enough to keep it around if you ask me.
which is why i said that the fault lies with lawyers and DNA to better convictions and to have more strict rules for death sentences so we can reduce the amount of falsely convicted (as we have been doing). but you admitted before that its impossible for mistakes not to happen so i don't see why if you clearly know that, are willing to abolish something thats never gonna be perfect anyway. so i ask you, if our criminal justice system will never be perfect (it won't) then why not just abandon the whole thing? thats your argument against the death penalty so why not just apply to the whole damned thing. because after all people get falsely convicted of rape, robbery etc. we have to reduce the amount of innocent convicted even if we know we cant fix it completely because usually it works well.
My final point was that the government doesn't really kill anybody. they execute them and i know this may seem like "splitting hairs" but welcome to the system. a criminal justice system cant be found guilty of murder much like i said when a peace officer cant be charged with molestation for patting you down. or a cop car cant be accused of stalking you for pulling you over because its part of the system. its the exception to itself. so in official terms, when an innocent man is executed by the state it is a mistake of the system (because he was convicted by the system). it doesn't matter what the punishment is wether it be 5 years, life w/o parole, or execution its all completely wrong and really getting rid of CP just puts a wrongfully convicted man in jail for the rest of his life instead of just being executed. (in which case he's problly support CP too!) - dont worry, its a joke.
zirchxworldAug 5, 2010
also you can ONLY say that people who believe in the Death Penalty are immoral AFTER you prove that the Death Penalty itself is immoral (because after all according to you its what makes someone have an immoral belief). and in the above argument i proved its no more immoral then honestly believing in anything else. so keep in mind if your going to argue that the people who believe in DP are immoral you must also and firstly prove what they believe is immoral. so keep that in mind for your rebuttal
/im looking forward to it.
zirchxworldAug 11, 2010
oh come on Rain you were really on a roll why did you stop? lol
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
And I think making such a boneheaded statement like every single person who happens to disagree with you is a immoral person, makes YOU an immoral person.
I have no problem with executing people who deserve it. But I think the death penalty should be reserved for people who have been proven without any shred of doubt to be guilty. Such as video proof, or equally damning evidence.
Then again, I think people shouldn't be found guilty of any crime without indisputable evidence. I think our jury system is flawed, and lends itself to emotional manipulation rather than actual facts, and we get a lot of questionable convictions as a result. But that's a different argument.
rain12913Aug 4, 2010
Like I said above, I should have formulated it as "it is immoral to believe that we should have a death penalty", rather than "you are an immoral person if you believe that we should have a death penalty." I stand by the former articulation of my point, though.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
donkiAug 4, 2010
What if I was ethically and morally fine with being sentenced to death by a jury of my peers even though I knew I was innocent? Does that make me immoral and unethical to support capital punishment? No, it doesn't.
Let's just ignore the glaring fact that there is no universal set of ethics and morality. Carry on with your terrible argument.
zirchxworldAug 5, 2010
sorry but your wrong with universal ethics. ethics are really only considered ethics if they are applied universally. otherwise you'd live in a paradox where all rules apply to everyone except you. morals are slightly different, keep in mind laws are the most basic form of morals. and again people have different personal morals yet overall we agree on some basic morals such as we dont kill each other, we dont steal from each other etc. so laws are based on basic morals and ethics ARE universal.
/im a philosophy major
donkiAug 5, 2010
eth·ics [eth-iks]
–plural noun
1.
( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
There is no universal system of ethics.
mo·ral·i·ty [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-]
–noun, plural -ties for 4–6.
4.
a doctrine or system of morals.
There is no universal system of morals.
zirchxworldAug 5, 2010
look up Kant's Universal Ethics then come back. thank you.
donkiAug 5, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_code_(ethics)
There are several ethical standards that seem to apply across cultures. The idea of a parent's duty to his child, a prohibition against killing useful members of society, and prohibition against incest are all examples of these universal morals. Most cultures also have some version of the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.[2]
That applies to "several ethical standards," though that is not all encompassing.
There are many different ethical standards, not all of them are the same. Thank you.
donkiAug 5, 2010
However, men like Marx and Engels believed that there could be no universal code of ethics because all ethics and philosophy are relative to the economical situations of each individual society. Therefore, each society would create its own system of ethics based on its economic status and history, and the current system of ethics would soon give way to a new one. Thus all morals and ethics are relative.
Later codes of ethics, such as that of Max Stirner, stated that the only ethics that existed were those which benefited the self. The common good and the love of one's fellow man, he claimed, were only illusory. Men who were exceptional in some way (intelligence or rank) were always the exception to moral standards. Nietzsche founded his ethical principles on this basis; he believed that everything powerful men did was defined as moral.[1]
No standard.
Thank you, come again.
zirchxworldAug 5, 2010
you know how to quote wikipedia, good job. unfortunately when it comes to sources wikipedia is not allowed so try harder next time. Ethics are universal otherwise its called a paradox. think of the golden rule, its an ethic. do unto others as one would expect in return and if you do something you would not want in return ur breaking ur own ethic thus creating a paradox (contradiction in ethical standards and morals). and all you really did was just quote a few expert opinions on ethics and many disagree with each other and have different philosophies. its quite obvious you don't know what your talking about so stop googling because your not gonna out smart me with 2min of research.
/stick to what you know.
donkiAug 5, 2010
My original statement stands:
What if I was ethically and morally fine with being sentenced to death by a jury of my peers even though I knew I was innocent? Does that make me immoral and unethical to support capital punishment? No, it doesn't.
That's exactly how I feel also, not just some example.
donkiAug 5, 2010
"you know how to quote wikipedia, good job. unfortunately when it comes to sources wikipedia is not allowed so try harder next time"
Awesome rebuttal to my points! I like your in depth analysis at the statements that destroyed your copy and paste "look up Kant's Universal Ethics then come back" remark.
"and all you really did was just quote a few expert opinions on ethics and many disagree with each other and have different philosophies."
Oh, you mean people who disagree with Kant's Universal Ethics? Wow... destroyed your argument with your own argument.
Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals"[1], regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or other distinguishing feature. Moral universalism is opposed to moral nihilism and moral relativism. However, not all forms of moral universalism are absolutist, nor are they necessarily value monist; many forms of universalism, such as utilitarianism, are non-absolutist, and some forms, such as that of Isaiah Berlin, may be value pluralist.
There is no universal system of ethics.
There is no universal system of morals.
I like how some copy and paste from Wikipedia destroys your philosophy studies. Drop out of college or switch to a major that will actually forward society.
NEXT!
zirchxworldAug 5, 2010
you are literally too ignorant to debate with. sure i could write out some Venn's and really put forth an effort to counter argue but all you'll do is just copy and paste something someone smarter than you said and claim victory so there really isn't much point in continuing. not to mention your f**king quoting wikipedia, can you get any lazier or not find any worse possible source?
I didnt even argue ur retarded point about immorality and execution or whatever bad analogy you were trying to make.
many different organizations have their own codes of ethics. examples are Police Code Ethics, Social Worker Code Ethics, etc. and yes these are guidelines for the various process they must undertake to perform their job in which they must follow otherwise it would defeat the purpose of having them in teh first place. Second, as you just quoted from Wiki, these codes ARE applied universally to everyone in their own community. just like i said, ALL police must follow the Police Code of Ethics, so in that case they ARE applied to every member of that group thus removing any paradox or contradiction between persons. They are based on the Deontological perspective in which the process must not contradict itself and must be morally sound along the way.
The Teleological view (opposite) is where "the ends justify the means" in which case the decision-making process does not practice moral values and is based solely on perceived rewards and is subject to various other factors and beliefs (such as Karma, crime etc.). Police and Society take the Deontological view because it is fair along the entire process. even if the end result is not necessarily viewed as "fair" if it is subject to a deontological decision-making process (ex. Justice System). the Criminal Justice System is problly the best example to use because it is a daily factor and the lowest common denominator in terms of ethics.
like i said, stick to what you know because your not going to win this debate with 30sec research and a few pasted quotes.
donkiAug 5, 2010
You're literally too retarded to debate.
"sure i could write out some Venn's and really put forth an effort to counter argue but all you'll do is just copy and paste something someone smarter than you said and claim victory so there really isn't much point in continuing."
Hi kettle, pot's angry that you called him black. Copy and paste something someone smarter said? Oh, remember when you did that above with universal ethics with Kent? You'll could put forth a counter argument, but it would fail epically because I've proven my points with facts and sources. All you have left is to attack my sources, even though that Wikipedia page has a references page at the bottom:
Hauser, Marc D. Moral Minds: the Nature of right and Wrong 2006. HarperCollins Publishers, New York, New York.
"Rigour, respect and responsibility: A universal ethical code for scientists." Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. http://www.dius.gov.uk/publications/science_society/file41318.pdf.
"Philosophy:Ethics:History." Open Site. <http://open-site.org/society/philosophy/ethics/history>.
Well, there goes your last s**tty argument. Owned.
Then you went to prove my point again:
"many different organizations have their own codes of ethics."
Codes of ethics differ everywhere, from organization to organization, from people to people. Which once again, proves my point that there:
There is no universal system of ethics.
There is no universal system of morals.
You did not refute anything in my original posts:
eth·ics [eth-iks]
–plural noun
1.
( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
There is no universal system of ethics.
mo·ral·i·ty [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-]
–noun, plural -ties for 4–6.
4.
a doctrine or system of morals.
There is no universal system of morals.
What if I was ethically and morally fine with being sentenced to death by a jury of my peers even though I knew I was innocent? Does that make me immoral and unethical to support capital punishment? No, it doesn't.
Let's just ignore the glaring fact that there is no universal set of ethics and morality. Carry on with your terrible argument.
Like I said, if someone who can copy and paste away and still own you at debate in your field of study, you need to find a new major. I've won this argument a long time again since you have yet to refute my claims and all you can do is attack my sources.
NEXT.
zirchxworldAug 5, 2010
you just made me realize how important education in this country is. thank you! I told you to look up Kant for ONE EXAMPLE on how universal ethics can be applied. not that he is almighty or anything like that. in fact, pretty much all philosophers are on the same level with their credibility adjusted accordingly. You don't even read what you post or anything about Kant. Because if you did you wouldn't call him "Kent" >.>
I showed you last time on how ethics can be applied universally not necessarily "universal ethics" even though they do exist. sure you cant have everybody agree on any one thing but most every sane, logical person understands basic principals or they have some serious faults in their personality or mental health. like why isn't there a push to legalize murder? Because most agree its immoral, unethical, and not good for society. there will always be an exception but ethics can still be applied universally. ALL cops follow their special Police Code of Ethics so its ethics being applied universally or universal ethics. i don't understand why thats so hard for you to understand.
no universal morals!? are you f**king kidding me? i just gave you one. thou shall not kill is a moral that over 90% of the overall population agree with and is viewed immoral. Immoral to the point that it became law that the moral be enforced. and since this applies to every mentally healthy, logical person in a certain nation, state, town etc. we can call this what it is, a universal ethic.
there goes my s**tty argument? im actually debating with skill not f**king pasting wikipedia and quoting some out of context sentence that came from god knows where. why dont you just debate the way i am? are you not capable? it would seem so..
and honestly its like im debating experts rather yourself. im sure if i got into a mathematical debate and just copy&pasted wikipedia youd give up. so unless YOU want to debate me stop pasting what smarter people than you have said. there are plenty of universal ethics and morals.
what your saying is an E statement. which means: NO ____ are _____. in your case, NO ethics ARE universal. and all i have to do to disprove you is prove that at least ONE does exist and i just did that so your argument is garbage. i have clearly won this debate without a single quote and you really have nowhere else to go. if you cant see that you have lost then you are in denial of reality.
donkiAug 5, 2010
no universal morals!? are you f**king kidding me? i just gave you one. thou shall not kill is a moral that over 90% of the overall population agree with and is viewed immoral. Immoral to the point that it became law that the moral be enforced. and since this applies to every mentally healthy, logical person in a certain nation, state, town etc. we can call this what it is, a universal ethic.
90% != Universal
God damn you're retarded. Thank God you've limited your mental retardation to a philosophy degree. I know you won't be doing anything with responsibilities that can have an impact on others in life.
"ALL cops follow their special Police Code of Ethics so its ethics being applied universally or universal ethics."
Really? Even the crooked ones? Even the ones that just get a police job because it's easy and they don't give two s**ts about morals?
I love how you still have not refuted my claims that there is a universal set that everyone goes by, and in your own retardation you even proved it yourself.
If we got into a mathematical debate you would lose quickly, because math is logical, unlike the "free thinking" bulls**t philosophy retardation that people who cannot make it through business school end up on. My second major was in math from Berkeley.
"what your saying is an E statement. which means: NO ____ are _____. in your case, NO ethics ARE universal. and all i have to do to disprove you is prove that at least ONE does exist and i just did that so your argument is garbage."
Except you didn't, and I posted multiple philosophers that agree with me. Moral relativism? Moral nihilism? I guess you haven't made it to those classes yet.
Do everyone a favor and drop out of college right now. You're wasting mommy and daddy's money.
zirchxworldAug 9, 2010
you lost this debate when you stole your argument from wikipedia. thats all i have to say to win it. because im right about that and your a thief for doing it. try that s**t in debate class and see how far you get lmao
its pathetic because you cant even paraphrase it or get a better source. if i said anymore i would just be wasting my time. go back to college and stay there!
donkiAug 9, 2010
Except you didn't win. You just admitted defeat. Let me sum up what you said:
"Well, because you're correct, and you sourced places to back you up, and because you totally invalidated my points with those said sources, I'm just going to blaim you for stealing your points."
I won the debate when I copy and pasted something from wikipedia and you couldn't defend against it. That goes to show how s**tty you are.
Saying I stole my points from wikipedia is like saying Christians stole their beliefes from the bible. You're retarded on so many levels it hurts.
Whether or not I stole anything is completely irrelevent. They just proved my original statements and you couldn't do anything about it. If copying and pasting what someone else said from wikipedia proves my argument and destroys yours, that speaks volumes about yours. In turn, it speaks volumes about your intelegence (the lack there of).
It's pathetic because you still have not refuted my claims that there is no universal set that everyone goes by, and in your own retardation you even proved it yourself.
I think we're done here.
I win.
Another one in the bag. Owned.
zirchxworldAug 11, 2010
your not worth it. i havent even tried to win because you cant even fight fairly so theres no point in fighting a skewed battle. your so c**ky its funny. if you really think posting quotes from wikipedia results in a win then its no wonder every comment you post gets buried (and no im not the one doing it).
you dont know s**t about philosophy or logic. thats much is certain. and there are universal ethics even if they are not practiced universally. why cant you understand that?
okay you may not be a theif for quoting but your a lazy retard who is too c**ky and ignorant for his own good. ethics and morals are universal even if they arent practiced by exactly 100% of people. they are still universal. its obvious you dont have a clue what your taking about. didnt you learn that wikipedia is an unacceptable source? so if your evidence is disqualified then i dont really have to pay any attention to what your trying to get at now do i. and its funny how you cant paraphrase or think for yourself. i know its hard to think for yourself..
p.s. dont quote what im saying if your not attacking what im saying. now please... shut the f**k up and troll elsewhere.
donkiAug 11, 2010
Ah! Admitting defeat once more! You're not even worth it because you got OWNED badly, and you still cannot do anything about it. By skewed battle you mean a battle you cannot win because you're wrong and I'm write and all you can do is cry about it.
Wikipedia isn't a good source? Let's just ignore that my argument was proved with FACTS and STATEMENTS from philosophers that are easily found anywhere. I posted multiple articles that have multiple references that completely destroys your argument. And none of my evidence was disqualified, because you couldn't disprove any of it. Owned again.
I guess you do know that it's hard to think for yourself because you're a f**king retard, and you're used to it. Go ahead and attack me for being lazy. I can be lazy and be 100% correct and own you at the same time because you're a bottom feeding moron. Why can't you understand that?
P.S. I'll quote what you're saying and attack what your saying. Do you even read what you type? You must have spent the first 10 years of your life gargling s**t... shut the f**k up, eat s**t, and kill yourself. You'll be doing the world a favor.
zirchxworldAug 12, 2010
are you really still here? my god your a c**ky one..
the only thing you've proved thus far is that your an ignorant piece of s**t who cant accept anything but his own false belief. philosophy is not black and white, or right or wrong, or win or lose. its a philosophy thats open for interpretation for many to study and argue about. is is always up for debate so for you to even attempt to think you know what your talking about from reading a page on wikipedia is insulting to every philosopher. they wouldn't accept your forged argument and neither do i, its just too pathetic.
i already proved at least one universal moral and ethic which means your conclusion isn't correct (aka you didn't win). i know its hard for your simple mind to understand complex concepts like moral universalism and how not everything is right or wrong. the concept of morals and ethics are universal. how can you tell me everyone practices or doesnt practice every moral is beyond me. there is no possible way to measure that so it really doesnt matter. what matters is that it can be applied universally (often so) and thus called universal. if you actually studied (and not googled) philosophy we could at least be on the same page here. but you haven't studied any of it so there really isnt much to do here. at this point im just yelling at an idiot because your too stupid to realize your unprepared for a debate you are so eager to fight. this is why you are ignoring the fact that your conclusion has a truth value of false!
so if you cant accept that your conclusion isn't right then there's nothing else to do with you but to ignore you. i cant make you realize your wrong (even though i tried my best). whats the old saying.. you can lead a horse to water but cant make it drink! your so stubborn and full of yourself you are unable to see the truth. this is over. stick to what you know because your out of your league here. arrogance is the tell-tale sign of lacking knowledge. f**k off already.
donkiAug 12, 2010
Wow you're still here and you're up for losing some more? I already proved to you that it is not universal (aka I win). I know it's hard for your mental retarded to understand, but multiple great philosophers agree with me, and you can't do s**t about it except cry about how I stole stuff from wikipedia.
YOU STILL HAVE NOT DISPROVED MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT:
There is no universal system of ethics.
There is no universal system of morals.
There are no universal morals or ethics. I already debunked your s**tty example. There are numerous examples of cultures now and in the past where all kinds of s**t was completely ass backwards and terrible, but it was moral and ethical then. They cannot be applied universally, because not every human being fits into the mold you described, completely trashing your s**tty argument.
Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is not inherently right or wrong. This view can lead to amoralism.
Moral nihilism must be distinguished from ethical subjectivism and moral relativism, which do allow for moral statements to be true or false in a non-objective sense, but do not assign any static truth-values to moral statements. Insofar as only true statements can be known, moral nihilists are moral skeptics.
Some prominent, recent moral nihilists are J. L. Mackie (1917–1981) and Richard Joyce (1966- ).
Glover has cited realist views of amoralism held by early Athenians, and in some ethical positions affirmed by Joseph Stalin.[5] The aims of the radical enlightenment culminated in moral nihilism seems to have been realised in the figure of the Marquis de Sade[6].
f**kING EVISCERATED. OWNED.
I win.
zirchxworldAug 12, 2010
so stupid. so eager and ignorant, all at the same time. its worth admiring. quit re-hashing my sentences you lazy f**k. you really have no imagination or openness in that thick skull of yours do you?
like i said earlier, all philosophers are pretty much all considered equal. so even though you can find one or two that agree, i can find one or two that disagree. just because you found "support" doesn't mean you OWNED!!! - it really just proves how dumb and stubborn you are. thats not what philosophy or debating is about. and you didn't even do what your early argument said. besides what is the exact definition of a universal set of ethics? its deeper and bigger than how simple you want to make it. quit talking out of your ass. and for f**k sake get your fat ass off of wikipedia.
the reason i tell you to get off wikipedia is because it doesn't have credibility. information from that site has been proven to be false sometimes. so for you to use bad sources for evidence it means you have bad evidence, you retard. its like, you wouldn't ask for a known liar's witness testimony in court would you? no, because they have no credibility just like your evidence. if you actually went to school for philosophy or have taken some logic courses then you would have more knowledge. instead, you have all your "evidence" and education coming from one source... that isn't even a reliable source lol. how would you say it.... EPIC FAILZ!!!
donkiAug 19, 2010
Wow still want to loose some more it seems.
I rehash your sentences and own you with them. Have no imagination? Does it take a little bit of imagination to rehash? If it didn't I would just be copy and pasting.
Like I said earlier:
There is no universal system of ethics.
There is no universal system of morals.
You did not refute anything in my original posts:
eth·ics [eth-iks]
–plural noun
1.
( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
There is no universal system of ethics.
mo·ral·i·ty [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-]
–noun, plural -ties for 4–6.
4.
a doctrine or system of morals.
There is no universal system of morals.
What if I was ethically and morally fine with being sentenced to death by a jury of my peers even though I knew I was innocent? Does that make me immoral and unethical to support capital punishment? No, it doesn't.
Let's just ignore the glaring fact that there is no universal set of ethics and morality. Carry on with your terrible argument.
Wikipedia has credited sources. It's basically an information aggregation site. Information has been proven false sometimes on the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Sorry that I owned you so bad that you have nothing to do but cry about my sources and my "stolen" arguments, even though the speak for me and OWN your points while backing up mine.
So terrible owned.
mbookmeyerAug 4, 2010
Justice cannot be had by killing another human being. It is now our crime. If they need to be held for the protection of society, fine, but those are the only people that should be in jails.. besides those in our government and wallstreet. I'd put them in there with them, for they do more harm to our society and kill more peoples dreams than all the physical killers that have ever lived.
trythinking1stAug 4, 2010
I was applauding you right untill the part with government and wallstreet...
adithAug 4, 2010
Police police police police.
hu99Aug 4, 2010
What what what what?
jhshuklaAug 4, 2010
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
deaderthanelvisAug 4, 2010
Bread and butter.
In the sentence above, there's a space between bread and and and and and butter.
In the sentence above, there's a space between bread and and and...
applessauceAug 4, 2010
But then who polices the police police?
gcnaddictAug 4, 2010
The police police police.
Obviously.
diggdownerAug 4, 2010
Developers developers developers developers
aenemacanalAug 4, 2010
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Wouldn't life in prison be more of a punishment than death? I don't know, I'm a pussy so I suppose my view is skewed :P
grammerpantsAug 4, 2010
I'm sure if I went to prison I would be bought for a carton of cigarettes in about 5 minutes. I'd rather get the chair.
spacem00seAug 4, 2010
Your ass aint that pretty cupcake.
stilesjaAug 4, 2010
@spacemoose Hey, if you don't like his ass I've got carton of Camels that says its mine.
gordon2108Aug 4, 2010
You can be released from prison if found innocent. Cant really raise you from the dead.
trainofthought6Aug 4, 2010
Yet.
crackinthebox10Aug 4, 2010
only because I NEED......MORE.....POOOOOWWWEEEEEERRRR!!!!! GIVE ME MORE POWWWEERRR!!!!
cooldude777Aug 4, 2010
If that were the case then people on death row wouldn't be fighting to have their death sentenced changed to life in prison, would they? You'd be having people with "life" terms begging for the death penalty.
bicolanoAug 4, 2010
Could it be they're doing that in order to lengthen their stay in death row by using the appeals process, which may take many, many years. Most times, there is an automatic appeal granted to those who are handed the death sentence. The prisoner doesn't have to initiated it.
jridge327Aug 4, 2010
Criminals in prison continue to victimize society. They're f**king expensive to house and feed. With no natural predators to reduce our numbers, we've got disease, war, and execution. All three of which I fully support, what with me being a big fan of nature and balance, and all.
mouse25314Aug 4, 2010
http://www.flickr.com/photos/endoftheline/3301038664/
aladinsaneAug 4, 2010
The thing that I find interesting is how badly the anti-Death Penalty crowd seems to WANT innocent men to have been executed. On the other hand, every single person I know who supports the Death Penalty wants only the guilty to die. My personal belief is that this is because the Anti-DP crowd only care about their own smug sense of Superiority, whereas the Pro-DP crowd actually care about the people involved. We want justice for the victim, which means we only want guilty men executed.
Oh, and BTW, while self-righteous college kids don't like to acknowledge this, the odds of executing an innocent man are astronomical. Take the case of Cameron Todd Willingham from the article itself. The guy burned his three children to death. All of them were under three years old. No one with even a passing familiarity with the case thinks he was innocent. But the article does what ALL Anti-DP articles do: it repeats the Defense arguments, without providing ANY of the Prosecution arguments. So in response to Rain12913: You know who I think is an "immoral person"? Anyone would would rush to the defense of a child-killer just to try and make some sort of pea-brained political statement.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
grammerpantsAug 4, 2010
*heh* Anit-DP and Pro-DP...... who doesn't like a little DP now and again?
wizardmaster420Aug 4, 2010
i like tp sometimes...tp for me bunghole
blackwing602Aug 4, 2010
The thing that I find interesting is how badly the anti-Death Penalty crowd seems to WANT innocent men to have been executed, yet this crowd is in no way responsible for innocent deaths. On the other hand, every single person I know who supports the Death Penalty wants only the guilty to die, and every single such person is also responsible, to some degree, for innocent deaths.
trythinking1stAug 4, 2010
Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V much?
scottknickAug 4, 2010
Oh, I get it, if we didn't "want" innocent people to be killed we wouldn't be so quick to accept evidence that the people who have been killed were innocent, is that it? If, for instance, we find it difficult to believe that "he guy burned his three children to death," when it turns out the fire in which the children died wasn't caused by arson, it's because we want so badly to believe that a man was executed for a crime that was not committed.
This is the kind of labyrinthine thinking one must maintain when one holds that we must kill people to show that killing people is wrong.
chris63084Aug 4, 2010
Your statement makes no sense. The whole point of being against something is that you don't want it to happen, the best way to argue against it? Show how it's KILLED INNOCENT PEOPLE. Retard.
stevemtylerAug 4, 2010
its kindof haunting to see the photos of these people. To see their eyes and know that they were innocent, to know that they knew they were innocent, and that no one believed them. Especially No 10 and No 9.
I used to support the death penatly 100%, but I'm not so sure anymore after this.
cooldude777Aug 4, 2010
Several of these cases don't indicate innocence, only that their trials had inconsistencies. And several of them were clearly bad people with prior convictions who were mistakenly executed for crimes they did not commit. Most of these people were not good people, but they were executed without today's standard of evidence.
alcimedesAug 4, 2010
Dunno, the guy who's wife and kid were killed, and turned out their lodger was a (later) known serial killer.
That's pretty f**ked up.
cooldude777Aug 4, 2010
Diggers have such selective reading skills. I didn't say they were all bad people. Obviously that case was pretty f**ked up. It always sucks when parents have lost their kids and they become the #1 suspect. Of course, a large percent of the time they are guilty, but for the innocent parents it is adding even more stress on top of losing a child.
blackwing602Aug 4, 2010
The thing that I find interesting is how badly the anti-Death Penalty crowd seems to WANT innocent men to have been executed, yet this crowd is in no way responsible for innocent deaths. On the other hand, every single person I know who supports the Death Penalty wants only the guilty to die, and every single such person is also responsible, to some degree, for innocent deaths.
tsothaAug 4, 2010
Not only that a few of them were iffy. #2, for example. The guy was convicted under the joint-enterprise laws at the time. The fact that the law was later changed doesn't make him innocent.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kordox3Aug 4, 2010
"Some expert"
Yeah people who actually know what they're talking about. The court should listen to them very carefully before making any decisions.
treshnellAug 4, 2010
From the way the article reads, it sounds like all the scientists they brought in that studied the evidence said that it wasn't arson, but the police said it was.
That's a pretty questionable decision.
treshnellAug 4, 2010
"Governor Perry refused to grant a stay of execution, saying through a spokesperson that "The Governor made his decision based on the facts of the case." Governor Perry said that the "supposed experts" (using finger quotes) were wrong and not to listen to anti-death penalty "propaganda". Perry aide Mary Anne Wiley said the commission’s $30,000 hiring of fire scientist Craig Beyler was a waste of taxpayer money. Jackson, one of the prosecutors, admitted that an "undeniably flawed forensic report" was used to convict Willingham, but claimed that other reasons established guilt."
tsothaAug 4, 2010
"Yeah people who actually know what they're talking about. "
Not everyone who claims to know what he's talking about, and not everybody who really does know what he's talking about is willing to tell the truth. We have juries to judge the weight and credibility of each piece of evidence. In this case presumably they decided he was wrong or some other piece of evidence was more compelling.
The older I get the more I realize most experts aren't.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
harshbarjAug 4, 2010
10 is already too many. It is easy to sit back and enjoy life while saying the death penalty is great, so long as you are never the one that is falsely convicted.
blankmediaAug 4, 2010
I think this are just the most relevant
skinny01Aug 4, 2010
There are just some of the most "notorious"/popular. It happens lots more to just regular people and doesn't make the news. Also add in that the only ones that get heard about are the ones who had their cases reopened and investigated. Imagine how many innocent ones died that didn't even get the chance for their investigations to be reopened.
For every one we know about there's probably 10 that we don't.
zenmojoAug 4, 2010
Watch a movie called Deadline. It's about Republican Governor George H. Ryan and how he commuted the sentences of every single person in Illinois on death row. It's amazing how many innocent people were on death row in Illinois.
Keep in mind that Ilinois also had one of the most reformed criminal systems in the United States at that point and wasn't really killing as many criminals per capita as a place like Texas. And yet, Texas claims they have never had a wrongfully convicted death row inmate.
The reality is that the state often WANTS to kill the person they accuse of a capital crime. They want it to go away. They see it as a method of convenience and closure. They have no real interest in justice, just expeditious finality. Many governments, just like many people in this thread, just want someone to pay and they don't care about the innocent people who get caught in the crossfire.
rain12913Aug 4, 2010
Who cares. At least one innocent human being has been unlawfully detained by his government and physically assaulted to the point of his death. This action was funded by we the taxpayers and done on our behalf; all moral people need to stand up and demand that this be put to an end. I don't care if you believe in the death penalty or not, unless you demand that it be stopped until we can find a way to guarantee with 100% certainty that somebody is guilty or not before they're killed by our representatives, then you're responsible for the deaths of these people.
joshreflekAug 4, 2010
ill agree that as a society we are responsible in some regard for what our elected officials assist in doing.
however, the electoral college and actual functions of government differ from the way they are explained in much of the media.
despite a 97% disapproval rating, the bailout went through, so apparently the government does what it wants to anyway.
this does not remove all culpability from the actions of it's people, yet clearly the people do need to rise up and put an end to the lunacy, but how can you do so, when you now need a permit to protest and even having one does not deter "the authorities" from abusing their power all over your civil rights and your face?
whack a mole with citizens aside, the people really do need to put their foot down on this authoritarian big brother 1984, 1943 pre war germany, governance of the american peoples.
emjayseaAug 4, 2010
As far as I'm concerned the US justice system should be designed to let some of the bad guys go rather than lock a few innocent people up (let alone take their lives--that shouldn't even be a discussion taking place in the 21st century). A few bad guys walk the street rather than a few innocent people have their lives destroyed--that's the way the home of the brave and the land of the free should do it, cause it takes free, brave people to say, that's the right thing to do.
hivoltage815Aug 4, 2010
We DO have that system with the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing. Or I should say we are supposed to have that system.
I think there can be obvious biases and corruption that can get in the way. But what is the proposed solution? If a jury of your peers is willing to send you to prison for a long time and a judge upholds this verdict, that is pretty conclusive. It is a lot more than any other civilization has ever had in history. If there is more we can do, then I might be for it. But as of now, I am at a loss.
dennycraineAug 4, 2010
1 is too many. I don't care if we have to release a thousand serial killers, it's worth it to keep a single innocent man from dying. When it comes down to it pro-death penalty people seem to be Consequentialists in which the end justifies the means, while anti-death penalty advocates (like myself) seem to be Deontologists in which the rightness or wrongness of an act from the character of the act itself rather than the outcomes of the action.
The reason I think in this case consequentialism is wrong is because I don't think the end is morally just. Punishing someone for murder by killing them is contradictory, while the intent seems to be based on sound morals (murder is wrong, therefore murderers must be punished) if not a bit self indulgent, the conclusion is hypocritical and fails to solve any problems. It leads me to believe pro-death penalty advocates are probably people who subscribe to the philosophy "do as I say not as I do". Which makes sense when you realize many of these people are religious.
nevermiss1Aug 4, 2010
Good journalism polices the police and the government.
mcquittyAug 4, 2010
Great. Too bad we don't have much of that anymore. Seems journalism today is portrayed as "24 hours of Anna Nicole Smith's death" or "Lindsay Lohan nail polish".
shadicAug 4, 2010
In the "Justice" section of CNN today, they have some s**t on "Snookie" or whoeverthef**k as one of the most prominent articles - picture and all. The Prop 8 ruling to come out later today? can't find a thing on the front page. Sigh.
blklightningAug 4, 2010
we ran out of that a long time ago. now all we have are skewed sound bites and talking puppets.
redcolumbineAug 4, 2010
Wikileaks.
mcquittyAug 4, 2010
I respectfully disagree. Wikileaks is not journalism. Wikileaks is a place where people can whistle blow, but journalism is different. Journalism is someone investigating and reporting. It used to be, journalists found whistleblowers.
ravagedsoulAug 4, 2010
Not to take anything away from this, but imprisoning an innocent man for 30 years (or whatever) is really just as bad, if not worse. Yeah, worse, cause 30 years (how many hours is that?) in prison for something you didn't do doesn't compare to ... nothing (dead, you don't think about anything.)
The death penalty is only a punishment if you think there is some kind of awareness after death. If there's not, it's nothing at all.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
worldstoasterAug 4, 2010
You're not considering the impact on the loved ones of the person who is killed. It punishes them handily.
zenmojoAug 4, 2010
The death penalty's not a punishment? So murder's not a crime? Kidnapping is worse?
scottknickAug 4, 2010
So, you wouldn't mind being killed?
mcquittyAug 4, 2010
Not taking a position on this debate but if I am dead, I don't care. I can't care. I am dead.
mcquittyAug 4, 2010
Spending tons of time in prison visiting rooms is no picnic.
aseaman1Aug 4, 2010
I don't believe in an awareness after life, but that hasn't turned me into an emotionless zombie who doesn't care if I live or die. The fact that I only have my life and then everything is over makes me more passionate about living. Thirty years would be horrible, but if you are innocent I think you might be proven innocent faster if you are actually still alive.
nachocheaseAug 4, 2010
If even one innocent person is put to death wrongly, then the system is fundamentally flawed and the death sentence should be banned. If the state kills an innocent person, then the state is guilty of murder as well.
kinkykingkalAug 4, 2010
Agreed.
But also, chew on this:
People who advocate killing people say that killing people is OK because killing people is the worst thing anyone could do.
Also incidentally an execution consists of people who kill people kill people who kill people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chuckdeesAug 4, 2010
"A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. And two months later, Justices Scalia and Thomas went even further than the chief justice following an extraordinary Supreme Court order instructing a federal court to hold a new hearing in Troy Davis' murder case, after seven of nine eyewitnesses recanted their testimony. Scalia, dissenting from that order, wrote for himself and Justice Clarence Thomas, "[t]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."
http://www.slate.com/id/2227222
homietheclownAug 4, 2010
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. or the one.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
The need to execute people?
slipperyottterAug 4, 2010
i wont bury you do to the fact your statement is a vague, but zaphid raises an interesting question.
mullinatorAug 4, 2010
The many do not need the existence of the death penalty. If they did then every country in the world would have it. Yet, countries like Canada, or even other states that don't have the death penalty do just as well when dealing with the dangers of criminals.
Now, don't go about using Spock in this context because it is highly illogical to misapply his arguments. The death penalty is nothing more than one, or both of these two things:
1. The result of a desire for vengeance. Something Spock would obviously be against.
2. Merely a time and resource saver. Killing another human being because it is cost effective is obviously a huge moral no-no.
zenmojoAug 4, 2010
I believe the point of the Bill of Rights was to defend the RIGHTS of the individual against the desires of the many.
scottknickAug 4, 2010
Why, if Ayn Rand heard you say that she'd shoot you herself.
hivoltage815Aug 4, 2010
When discussing utilitarianism vs. classical moral standings, it is important to note that BOTH viewpoints claim you can never unjustly take away another's fundamental rights (such as to life or liberty), even if it better's society. If that were true, then you would be able to justify things such as slavery as moral.
faskippyAug 4, 2010
If they're gonna say "proved innocent", I wish they'd only put those in there.
blankmediaAug 4, 2010
it's the jews
skullscrewAug 4, 2010
It's obviously been proven that the death penalty will, on occasion, kill an innocent person. If you are for the death penalty, then this is okay with you. Innocent people are going to die.
If that's okay with you, fine. Volunteer to be one of them.
1b2aAug 4, 2010
Innocent people get jailed too. You want to abolish imprisonment too? Innocent people get accused of rape. Want to legalize rape?
gehringerAug 4, 2010
Innocents who end up in jail can be released, whereas people found innocent after being executed can't be brought back.
askantikAug 4, 2010
gehringer... wait, we can't reanimate these folks? :p
notigAug 4, 2010
I am okay with no death penalty as long as they are put to work and cost society no extra expense. But instead we got prisoners laying around... watching cable tv... probably even using facebook from jail
aseaman1Aug 4, 2010
Agreed. The revenue generated in 8 hours of labor could definitely offset the cost to keep a prisoner alive.
inactiveuserAug 4, 2010
Because cops are lazy and go for the kill regardless even when they know its wrong to do so.
Because judges are pontificating arrogant assh**es at times
Because Judges and Lawyers speak in a language the jury cannot always understand.
No one should be put to death because the legal system is fallible in all aspects.
ren1999Aug 4, 2010
But it is not o.k. to parole someone who has committed murder.
Do you think it is o.k. to let Mark David Chapman go free while John Lennon is 6 feet under?
It is also not o.k. to let murderers out of an overcrowded jail, or let them stay at home for extended periods.
Keep in mind that I am a liberal about most other things. But justice needs to be strict.
You want to stop the death penalty? Fine! But don't allow these things above.
noyb1Aug 4, 2010
@ren1999
You have a very black and white view. I am a liberal and in favor of justice(yes those two go together contrary to popular belief).
First of all you cannot force prisoners to work, that is called slavery and has been illegal for quite some time. I agree they should not have modern luxuries however.
Second no matter what I do not believe in the death penalty. I suppose it is a question of would I rather see someone guilty possibily go free or risk killing an innocent person. There also a question of the barbaric and hypocritical nature of it all as well.
spacemanspiff22Aug 4, 2010
These people are already being held against their will, I really don't see how putting them to work is really that much worse. I would think many of them would gladly do it especially if it gave them a chance to demonstrate they had reformed.
hivoltage815Aug 4, 2010
Wow you are short-sided. Slavery may be illegal, but courts have already ruled that convicted prisoners do not have the same rights as everyone else. I mean, the American forefathers guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; does that mean prison is anti-American? You can throw that legal argument out, because it was just plain dumb.
If you are standing on a moral argument, how is making someone repay their debts to society wrong? If you think it is, you might as well just let people roam free after committing crimes, because imprisoning them is far worse than putting them to work. I am interested to hear you explain your moral reasoning.
emjayseaAug 4, 2010
Is the purpose of imprisonment to punish or to rehabilitate, or both? Only if it's just to punish do we lock people up and throw away the key.
aivzdogAug 4, 2010
One of the reasons why I dont like the death penalty.
MillerBartAug 4, 2010
Oops
7king7kingAug 4, 2010
hope they went to heaven.
fungowskiAug 4, 2010
sorry
atroaciousAug 4, 2010
s**t i feel sorry for some of these people, first lose their family then be hung for killing them...
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
The very reason why I waffle on the death penalty
trax852Aug 4, 2010
" his conviction resting on whether or not ‘let him have it’ was an instruction to shoot or to hand over the weapon. "
Lawyers...
Mayhaps his buddy had an apple he wanted to share as well.
fungowskiAug 4, 2010
Is it just me or are these some of the most depressing stories you ever heard? I particularly don't want to imagine what it must be like for your children to be dead and to know that you're about to be wrongfully executed for it.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
We haven't used the death penalty in New Zealand for half a century. It's barbaric.
frisbinatorAug 4, 2010
Lawyers = mafia with diplomas
charlesdkraussAug 4, 2010
Instead of capital punishment I think we should just try to rehabilitate them or keep them in prison for life if they can't be rehabilitated. It's better than accidentally killing a single innocent person ever.
davenp0rtAug 4, 2010
George Watkins had the right idea. If your woman f**ks another man, don't kill him. Disappear for a while, then let the state kill him.
peaceshotAug 4, 2010
http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/9858/67234656.jpg
guitarchitectAug 4, 2010
have you guys heard of the west memphis three?
watch "Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills" and then ask yourself how "just" the justice system is.
wrath017Aug 4, 2010
Watch "Paradise Lost", but skip the intro if you don't want to see extremely explicit uncensored video of dead naked children with mutilated genitals.
dennycraineAug 4, 2010
I am now going to go watch the intro to Paradise Lost
wrath017Aug 4, 2010
It cannot be unseen.
jjesusfreak01Aug 4, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
bladzalotAug 4, 2010
Ridiculously deceptive title...
Dictionary.com says Notorious = Widely and unfavorably known
I have never heard of a single person on this list. Not to say that the article is untrue, and that they deserved to be wrongfully executed, but come on...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
impsethAug 4, 2010
You know what's funny. If everybody involved in a wrongful execution was so racked with guilt when the pardon came down that they killed themselves we'd have no police, judges, juries, or lawyers.
2 of those some people wouldn't consider a bad thing however.
ren1999Aug 4, 2010
The purpose of imprisonment is not to rehabilitate or punish.
The purpose of imprisonment is to remove dangerous criminals from your children.
Here are some needed reforms to improve the lives of prisoners.
1st, release all the people in jail for marijuana.
2nd, force prisoners to eat health food. Ban junk food.
3rd, put prisoners to work to give them exercise and exhaust them so they aren't violent. Let them repay their debt to society for the cost of putting them in jail. It isn't slavery.
I'm just spouting off here. I don't expect the U.S. to ever change.
mrbitchnofunAug 4, 2010
My children don't have any dangerous criminals in them.
Closed AccountNov 12, 2010
Uneducated response.
kook321Aug 4, 2010
If a lot innocent people are being executed then just image the number of innocent people being imprison.
deschamosAug 4, 2010
As Banksy put it: "Anyone who believes in capital punishment should be shot."
sspinkAug 4, 2010
As the old saying goes: ‘Who shall police the police?’
I dunno, Coast Guard?
chadsterrrAug 4, 2010
*Who watches the watchmen?
There, fixed it for ya
kvasaariAug 4, 2010
I'm glad most of the civilized countries have abolished the death penalty.
krieggAug 4, 2010
they need to add John Coffee to the list
Closed AccountNov 12, 2010
Like the drink, only spelt different.
squatsmcgeeAug 4, 2010
What I learned from this article was that ~100 years ago if you wanted someone dead, you just had to disappear. Odds are the person you want dead also has a problem with you, and someones gonna come forward and say they did it.
Then you come back, no harm no foul!
martrinexAug 4, 2010
I don't know what is worse the fact that they were innocent and executed or the fact that even after their death they are still being labelled "criminals" in the title of this article...
appleuprising45Aug 4, 2010
LOL!
avangionqAug 4, 2010
Why do we kill people who kill other people to prove that killing is wrong?
Closed AccountNov 12, 2010
We don't do it to prove killing is wrong. We do it to ensure that person will never kill anyone else ever again. And guess what? It has proven to be 100% effective.
otaku244Aug 4, 2010
What!? No Jesus?
ukdirectorAug 5, 2010
In most Jobs today if you get something wrong you get punished for your error, so why do we let these people get away with murder?
The Problem lays with the police, although I do not agree with taking another humans life....
If the police gave all the evidence in trials instead of just evidence pointing to someones guilt, this would not happen so much. Why not pass a law that if a person is convicted of a crime, because of police evidence given, but later they are proved innocent then the police involved in the conviction should then be sentenced to the same sentence that the innocent person was given. This way the police will do what the people want them to do and that is to catch the criminal not fit people up because they think they have the right person...
If Just 1 innocent person was put to death then the death sentence should have been abolished.