No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes.

The fear of any negative outcome for your body, including death, serves as a deterrent. The thought that if you go to jail, you might be mistreated, abused, assaulted, and even killed might deter people from engaging in activity that may result in going to jail.

That still does not alter my opposition to capital punishment.

Which makes absolutely zero sense. As for your claim that innocent people are put to death in large numbers, show me the proof.

 

[mattskramer]

Which makes absolutely zero sense. As for your claim that innocent people are put to death in large numbers, show me the proof.

It makes perfectly logical sense.

Here is a good link showing that over 100 people were freed from death row.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...did=412&scid=6

Large numbers or small numbers are relative terms. I would rather have 1000000 killers suffer harsh life sentences than to execute an innocent person.

Just look at the story of Frank Lee smith:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=2340#90

and

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/smith/

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It makes perfectly logical sense.

Here is a good link showing that over 100 people were freed from death row.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...did=412&scid=6

Large numbers or small numbers are relative terms. I would rather have 1000000 killers suffer harsh life sentences than to execute an innocent person.

Just look at the story of Frank Lee smith:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=2340#90

and

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/smith/

And you can not provide a compelling reason. Thanks for playing.

 

[maineman]

And you can not provide a compelling reason. Thanks for playing.

how ridiculous.... since the advent of DNA, socres of death row inmates have been exonerated, and you want to believe, that in all the years that we have been hanging, electrocuting, gassing and injecting people, that NONE of them were innocent?

PROVE to me the sun will come up tomorrow.

 

[red states rule]

how ridiculous.... since the advent of DNA, socres of death row inmates have been exonerated, and you want to believe, that in all the years that we have been hanging, electrocuting, gassing and injecting people, that NONE of them were innocent?

PROVE to me the sun will come up tomorrow.

With DNA evidence, how can an innocent person be wrongly executed?

 

[maineman]

With DNA evidence, how can an innocent person be wrongly executed?

the question had to do with whether we had executed innocent people in the past, not whether we will execute innocent people in the future.... and consider that, in the past, everyone was convicted and sentenced to death without DNA evidence. Why would anyone think that the error rate for crimes with NO DNA evidence either way would be any different now than then?

 

[red states rule]

the question had to do with whether we had executed innocent people in the past, not whether we will execute innocent people in the future.... and consider that, in the past, everyone was convicted and sentenced to death without DNA evidence. Why would anyone think that the error rate for crimes with NO DNA evidence either way would be any different now than then?

It is a safe bet innocent people have been executed in our nations history. The same will every other country - but with DNA only the guilty will be executed

I have no problem with capital punishment with DNA backing up the case

 

[maineman]

It is a safe bet innocent people have been executed in our nations history. The same will every other country - but with DNA only the guilty will be executed

I have no problem with capital punishment with DNA backing up the case

Are you supporting a law that says only those criminals with DNA evidence proving their guilt should be executed?

 

[red states rule]

Are you supporting a law that says only those criminals with DNA evidence proving their guilt should be executed?

If there is no other solid evidence - surveillance tapes, video of the crime, eye witnesses accounts, the bodies found in the accused home, or a confession

In order for me to vote for the death penalty there must be hard evidence

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you supporting a law that says only those criminals with DNA evidence proving their guilt should be executed?

I do not. Unless you feel our Legal and justice system is unfair or corrupt in some manner I do not see how you can support such a requirement.

Apply it across the board and see how well THAT flys.

 

[maineman]

If there is no other solid evidence - surveillance tapes, video of the crime, eye witnesses accounts, the bodies found in the accused home, or a confession

In order for me to vote for the death penalty there must be hard evidence

eye witness accounts? do you have any idea how many death row inmates convicted on eyewitness testimony have been exonerated by DNA?

Every single death row inmate was convicted on what District Attorneys felt stongly was "solid evidence". Can you imagine asking a jury to sentence someone to death on anything other than "solid evidence"? Can you imagine sitting on a jury and voting for the death penalty on anything other than "solid evidence"? Yet the proof is there that lots and lots of men were sentenced to death on what was certainly "solid evidence" who were, in fact, innocent.

 

[red states rule]

eye witness accounts? do you have any idea how many death row inmates convicted on eyewitness testimony have been exonerated by DNA?

Every single death row inmate was convicted on what District Attorneys felt stongly was "solid evidence". Can you imagine asking a jury to sentence someone to death on anything other than "solid evidence"? Can you imagine sitting on a jury and voting for the death penalty on anything other than "solid evidence"? Yet the proof is there that lots and lots of men were sentenced to death on what was certainly "solid evidence" who were, in fact, innocent.

Eye witness accounts was only ONE factor

Even when the cases are solid, the left still protests the death sentence - which is amazing

 

[RetiredGySgt]

eye witness accounts? do you have any idea how many death row inmates convicted on eyewitness testimony have been exonerated by DNA?

Every single death row inmate was convicted on what District Attorneys felt stongly was "solid evidence". Can you imagine asking a jury to sentence someone to death on anything other than "solid evidence"? Can you imagine sitting on a jury and voting for the death penalty on anything other than "solid evidence"? Yet the proof is there that lots and lots of men were sentenced to death on what was certainly "solid evidence" who were, in fact, innocent.

Why limit conviction on DNA JUST to Death cases? If it is the be all, end all, only sure bet, why not EVERY case?

 

[red states rule]

Why limit conviction on DNA JUST to Death cases? If it is the be all, end all, only sure bet, why not EVERY case?

If only the DA would have went with the DNA evidence in the Duke case

Now he is on trial

 

[maineman]

Why limit conviction on DNA JUST to Death cases? If it is the be all, end all, only sure bet, why not EVERY case?

that is a silly question. the difference, of course, is there is no ability to say "OOPS" "we fucked up" "do over" after you have executed someone.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

that is a silly question. the difference, of course, is there is no ability to say "OOPS" "we fucked up" "do over" after you have executed someone.

Ohh, I see, it is ok to send to prison for life with no parole an "innocent" person BUT not to use the same system to execute someone. It is ok to deny them their rights as long as we just don't kill them in the process.

Either the system is acceptable or it is not. Create a law that says what you propose and it is going to lead to what I have said, every Lawyer will be pointing to the law and saying, THIS proves the system doesn't work, without DNA, my client is unable to be proven guilty by a flawed system.

 

[mattskramer]

Ohh, I see, it is ok to send to prison for life with no parole an "innocent" person BUT not to use the same system to execute someone. It is ok to deny them their rights as long as we just don't kill them in the process.

Either the system is acceptable or it is not. Create a law that says what you propose and it is going to lead to what I have said, every Lawyer will be pointing to the law and saying, THIS proves the system doesn't work, without DNA, my client is unable to be proven guilty by a flawed system.

There is a term called “compromise”. Just because something is not absolutely perfect is not a reason to totally discard it. Everyone knows that the system is not perfect but it is the best that we have. We can’t do without jails and prisons for convicts. It is likely that many convicts did commit the crimes for which they were sent to prison. Yet, for those who might not have committed the crime isn’t it best to let people live in jail and be released if and when proof surfaces to show that he did not commit the crime?

 

[maineman]

Ohh, I see, it is ok to send to prison for life with no parole an "innocent" person BUT not to use the same system to execute someone. It is ok to deny them their rights as long as we just don't kill them in the process.

Either the system is acceptable or it is not. Create a law that says what you propose and it is going to lead to what I have said, every Lawyer will be pointing to the law and saying, THIS proves the system doesn't work, without DNA, my client is unable to be proven guilty by a flawed system.

justice is less than perfect. I have never said, nor even implied that it was OK to send an innocent person to prison for life with no parole. I think that is absolutely heinous. The significant difference, of course, is that is NOT irreversible. If you execute someone today and then find out tomorrow that you screwed up - if an eye witness recants, or a new piece of exculpatory evidence is found after being misplaced in the evidence locker, or if someone is caught in the act of committing a similar crime and has, in their possession the murder weapon from the former case that had never been found, or any other of a host of events that might happen to cast doubt on the guilt of a defendant, "ooops" probably will not fly as an acceptable excuse for their family. If, on the other hand, any of those things happen and the formerly convicted person is serving life instead of becoming worm food, the state car reverse its error. Is that really so hard to understand?

 

[mattskramer]

justice is less than perfect. I have never said, nor even implied that it was OK to send an innocent person to prison for life with no parole. I think that is absolutely heinous. The significant difference, of course, is that is NOT irreversible. If you execute someone today and then find out tomorrow that you screwed up - if an eye witness recants, or a new piece of exculpatory evidence is found after being misplaced in the evidence locker, or if someone is caught in the act of committing a similar crime and has, in their possession the murder weapon from the former case that had never been found, or any other of a host of events that might happen to cast doubt on the guilt of a defendant, "ooops" probably will not fly as an acceptable excuse for their family. If, on the other hand, any of those things happen and the formerly convicted person is serving life instead of becoming worm food, the state car reverse its error. Is that really so hard to understand?

I thought that, all issues considered in detail, I was a moderate moderate – very close to the socio-political middle. Yet, based on reading posts from different people, I think that I may be a moderate Democrat thanks to your intellectual honesty and sensible responses.

Unfortunately, I still trust Rudi more than I trust Hillary to be a good sensible president. Oh well. I guess that I am not perfect. At least Rudi is not an ultra-Right wing Republican.

 

[DeadCanDance]

"No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working"

"Pentagon: Iraqi violence still rising"

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Violence in Iraq, as measured by casualties among troops and civilians, has edged higher despite the U.S.-led security push in Baghdad, the Pentagon told Congress on Wednesday.

In its required quarterly report on security, political and economic developments in Iraq, covering the February-May period, the Pentagon also raised questions about Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's ability to fulfill a pledge made in January to prohibit political interference in security operations and to allow no safe havens for sectarian militias.

Overall, however, the report said it was too soon to judge whether the security crackdown was working.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_PENTAGON_REPORT?SITE=CTDAN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT