The Left - “The death penalty is wrong”

[JWBooth]

The left thinks the death penalty is barbaric

I might believe that if they were advocated for commutation of the people Bidet passed over.

 

[protectionist]

Holy stretch of the imagination batman!

I (and most on the left) oppose the death penalty because it doesn’t work and is misapplied. How many murderous cops have been executed? Pretty much zero.

As for the guy who killed the CEO...a fragment of the left stupidly embraces this murderer.

In this forum, I have named DOZENS of murderous murderers who did not get the death penalty, and then afterwards killed people (who would be alive now if those killers had been executed)

.....can you name one murderous cop ?

 

[d0gbreath]

In this forum, I have named DOZENS of murderous murderers who did not get the death penalty, and then afterwards killed people (who would be alive now if those killers had been executed)

.....can you name one murderous cop ?

Chauvin.

 

[protectionist]

Chauvin.

Nope. He was framed, with the medical examiner (Dr Andrew Baker), coerced into making a false report of asphixiation.

In addition, the former medical examiner, Dr David Fowler, testified in the trial, that Chauvin had nothing to do with Floyd's death, and that Floyd died of heart failure, from his faulty heart condition + drugs in his body.

Former medical examiner says George Floyd died due to his heart disease -- not Derek Chauvin

Maryland's former chief medical examiner testified for Derek Chauvin's defense on Wednesday that George Floyd died due to his underlying heart disease -- not the police restraint.

www.cnn.com

 

[Jarlaxle]

People in death row are not generally innocent.

Also, the question is quite perplexing considering like 41% of "young voters" say the killing of the united CEO was justified.

Deflection. Answer the question.

How many innocent people are you willing to kill to sate your bloodlust ? Killed by convicts inside the prison, who could have been executed.

Deflection. Answer the question.

You won't, of course.

 

[protectionist]

Deflection. Answer the question.

Deflection. Answer the question.

You won't, of course.

No, you answer MY question, and if you don't, I'm gonna answer it for you.

 

[BULLDOG]

1. The death penalty should only be done when guilt is 100% positive.

2. If executions were one more quickly (2-3 years), instead of drawn out over endless appeals for 30 years, they would be far cheaper.
3. The death penalty is no more barbarian than gambling with the lives of all those who could be killed by the killer being allowed to remain alive.

1. We've always thought those sentenced to the death penalty were 100% guilty until newly discovered evidence proves their innocence. That often happens (documented proof) after the innocent person has been killed for a crime he never committed.
2. We have protections to try to prevent sentencing innocent people to death. The delay of execution is a result of those protections. Even with those protections, innocent people have been executed. (see #1)
3. Keeping people found guilty for even the most heinous crimes locked up protects the public from other crime.
4. If you want to argue that perhaps they release some prisoners too soon, I won't disagree with you.

 

[BULLDOG]

Making MONEY for those in the legal profession. And the longer they string out appeals (30+ yrs), the more money they make off of it.

I'll bet you're one of those goobers who claims you do your own research, aren't you? Believing conspiracy theories and lies isn't really doing your own research.

 

[BULLDOG]

FALSE! Minnesota & California do, both written into law.

specific link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. We've always thought those sentenced to the death penalty were 100% guilty until newly discovered evidence proves their innocence. That often happens (documented proof) after the innocent person has been killed for a crime he never committed.
2. We have protections to try to prevent sentencing innocent people to death. The delay of execution is a result of those protections. Even with those protections, innocent people have been executed. (see #1)
3. Keeping people found guilty for even the most heinous crimes locked up protects the public from other crime.
4. If you want to argue that perhaps they release some prisoners too soon, I won't disagree with you.

That often happens (documented proof) after the innocent person has been killed for a crime he never committed.

How often? How many innocents killed out of how many total?

 

[BULLDOG]

That often happens (documented proof) after the innocent person has been killed for a crime he never committed.

How often? How many innocents killed out of how many total?

So, killing just a few innocent people for crimes they didn't commit is fine with you? What if you or someone you love were that person?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, killing just a few innocent people for crimes they didn't commit is fine with you? What if you or someone you love were that person?

Gacy was executed in Illionois. Was that alright?

 

[BULLDOG]

Gacy was executed in Illionois. Was that alright?

From what I know of the case, he deserved it, and I want him to rot in hell. This isn't about how heinous the crime is. This is about us. Should we take a chance on killing an innocent person? It takes a long time for the courts to finally decide if a person is actually guilty. If I was arrested for something I didn't do, I would want all those protections and then some. I'm sure you would too. Even with the meticulous steps we take to prevent the murder of an innocent person, some are still killed with later evidence proving their innocence. I don't want my country to be responsible for the death of an innocent person, especially when it is so much cheaper and easier to lock them up forever.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From what I know of the case, he deserved it, and I want him to rot in hell. This isn't about how heinous the crime is. This is about us. Should we take a chance on killing an innocent person? It takes a long time for the courts to finally decide if a person is actually guilty. If I was arrested for something I didn't do, I would want all those protections and then some. I'm sure you would too. Even with the meticulous steps we take to prevent the murder of an innocent person, some are still killed with later evidence proving their innocence. I don't want my country to be responsible for the death of an innocent person, especially when it is so much cheaper and easier to lock them up forever.

This is about us. Should we take a chance on killing an innocent person?

How big a chance? You said this often happens. How often?

It takes a long time for the courts to finally decide if a person is actually guilty. If I was arrested for something I didn't do, I would want all those protections and then some. I'm sure you would too.

You bet. Absolutely. 100%. That doesn't mean 20 years or more.

I don't want my country to be responsible for the death of an innocent person, especially when it is so much cheaper and easier to lock them up forever.

Forever? You want to take the chance of locking up an innocent person, forever?

And why do you feel it's cheaper? A tank of N2 is pretty cheap.

 

[BULLDOG]

As is trans surgery

The difference being that a trans patient is free to choose whether they go through it and are subjected to a battery of evaluations to determine if it is, in fact, something they want to do, and whether they are even capable of making an informed choice.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The difference being that a trans patient is free to choose whether they go through it and are subjected to a battery of evaluations to determine if it is, in fact, something they want to do, and whether they are even capable of making an informed choice.

Like children? Better back that choo choo up

 

[whitehall]

Who or what constitutes the "left" and how do we know what they think? It's a ridiculous argument obviously intended to defend bad decisions by a senile old man. You have to scratch your head when left wing pundits seemed to have justified the execution of unarmed Ashli Babbitt who might have been guilty of simple trespass on Jan 6.

 

[JusticeHammer]

The left thinks the death penalty is barbaric

The death penalty was given to many by God. The left is barbaric, and stupid.

 

[JusticeHammer]

No state allows babies to be killed

I do believe you are wrong

 

[BULLDOG]

This is about us. Should we take a chance on killing an innocent person?

How big a chance? You said this often happens. How often?

It takes a long time for the courts to finally decide if a person is actually guilty. If I was arrested for something I didn't do, I would want all those protections and then some. I'm sure you would too.

You bet. Absolutely. 100%. That doesn't mean 20 years or more.

I don't want my country to be responsible for the death of an innocent person, especially when it is so much cheaper and easier to lock them up forever.

Forever? You want to take the chance of locking up an innocent person, forever?

And why do you feel it's cheaper? A tank of N2 is pretty cheap.

If it were me being charged for something I didn't do, any chance would be too much.

It means long enough to evaluate every protection the prisoner has coming. Since innocent people are still executed, it obviously doesn't take long enough.

Yes. Only not forever. When they die you can bury them and not worry about keeping them locked up. They have still been found guilty of a heinous crime, and there has yet to be exonerating evidence produced so it would be dumb to just set them free. The rub is that there might be exonerating evidence produced. It happens.

I feel it is cheaper because it is cheaper. No, I'm not going to look up the numbers for you. If you are too stupid to know it costs less to keep someone locked up than to go through all the proceedings to execute them, then you are too dumb to waste time with.