Gerry Conlon - a case against the death penalty

[Tommy Tainant]

I’m not happy to see anybody hang, you retard.

I suggest that you start (someday) TO think.

So you are against capital punishment. Sorry, I thought you were in favour.

 

[BackAgain]

So you are against capital punishment. Sorry, I thought you were in favour.

You’re an ignorant twat.

Coincidentally, I do dislike capital punishment — but, unlike mindless drone hack bitch trolls like you, I support it in a very few specific types of cases.

Stop inserting your brainless guesswork for the positions of people you don’t know. You lack the capacity to engage in reason and logic.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You’re an ignorant twat.

Coincidentally, I do dislike capital punishment — but, unlike mindless drone hack bitch trolls like you, I support it in a very few specific types of cases.

Stop inserting your brainless guesswork for the positions of people you don’t know. You lack the capacity to engage in reason and logic.

Have a word with bob. he still wants to murder Gerry Conlon.

 

[BackAgain]

Have a word with bob. he still wants to murder Gerry Conlon.

I wonder if Conlon’s false confession was even false. It doesn’t look like he was in peril of any death penalty, anyway.

By the way, you dishonest hack retard, but it’s is one thing to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. It is another thing to only oppose it “because” it remains possible that an innocent person could be convicted and be out to death. If your claim is the latter, then you basically oppose the death penalty for all since it is impossible for us to fully guarantee the validity of any verdict. So why not just say it honestly, taint.

Unless you want to stipulate that there might be some level of proof so high that there is zero risk of an an erroneous conviction. In that case you would support a death penalty? (I suspect that you’re entirely full of shit.)

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I wonder if Conlon’s false confession was even false. It doesn’t look like he was in peril of any death penalty, anyway.

By the way, you dishonest hack retard, but it’s is one thing to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. It is another thing to only oppose it “because” it remains possible that an innocent person could be convicted and be out to death. If your claim is the latter, then you basically oppose the death penalty for all since it is impossible for us to fully guarantee the validity of any verdict. So why not just say it honestly, taint.

Unless you want to stipulate that there might be some level of proof so high that there is zero risk of an an erroneous conviction. In that case you would support a death penalty? (I suspect that you’re entirely full of shit.)

That level of proof doesnt exist so its a straw man. Deal with the reality which is police corruption,shit lawyers and an oppressive state.

 

[BackAgain]

That level of proof doesnt exist so its a straw man. Deal with the reality which is police corruption,shit lawyers and an oppressive state.

There are some police officers who do their jobs poorly. There are some lawyers who suck at their jobs. The state isn’t necessarily oppressive just because a twat like you happens not to like it.

And by the way you simpering chimp, the point was that no such level of proof exists. Therefore, dolts like you must oppose every execution. But not because the mistake might exist. You just don’t support capital punishment. And pretending that it could have an innocent person put to death is just your disingenuous way of seeking to negate capital punishment in all cases.