Texas executed an innocent man?

[targetman377]

The question isn't whether he's innocent or not. You're kinda right, for all I know he's guilty as sin. But that's irrelevant. We killed him. Are you sure he was guilty without a reasonable doubt? That is the only question that matters. And from where I'm sitting, the answer is a resounding NO.

you say that but we where not there we did not see the trail the jury obviously disagrees with you on this since he was convicted! beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless he waved his right by a trial of his peers but that would be his choice!

[quote=spurigistan]So, the system isn't perfect, and yet we go on killing people. Hmm. Additionally, if the state of Texas, which executes more people than 90% of the world's countries, can have a mistake this egregious, at the very least some very real changes need to happen.[/quote]

and we keep giving out welfare, keep police stations, firefighters, defense budget. all have corruption and fraud. all of these things are bad and not right yet should we get raid of them? no we keep them?

[quote=Symmetry]I think you have a strong point, but then I've seen the reliability of death penalty judgments brought up on either side as a case for or against the penalty. The potential incompetence of the process is a big part of why I, and other anti-death penalty advocates, argue that life sentences are better. Sure, they can still be wrong, but they can be at least partially reversible.[/quote]
like i said before lots of things have problems all we can do is try to fix them

[targetman377]

Something about the idea of polling a crowd about whether a man will be killed or not is incredibly disgusting.

Democracy: It's enough to make you sick

i agree with this sentence completely

[PLAYER57832]

When you see who is on death row and who is not, you realize very quickly it has more to do with having the money for a good lawyer than the particular crime.

From the beginning, when its decided that x is a murder and y is not, there is heavy, heavy bias. Some regions have very highly trained people, almost "CSI" (though MUCH slower...no instant DNA in the real world!), others have officials that are elected or appointed to coroner's positions with only the barest of training (or none). You have the same all the way up and down the line to judges.

Of course, no system created by humans will be perfect, but if we cannot install at least some minimal checks, then our system needs revision.

[spurgistan]

So, the system isn't perfect, and yet we go on killing people. Hmm. Additionally, if the state of Texas, which executes more people than 90% of the world's countries, can have a mistake this egregious, at the very least some very real changes need to happen.

and we keep giving out welfare, keep police stations, firefighters, defense budget. all have corruption and fraud. all of these things are bad and not right yet should we get raid of them? no we keep them?

Sorry, I was unaware that welfare killed people.

Also, learn ya quotes! At least preview, I don't wanna have to clean stuff up just to post my trademark aggro-snark.

[Woodruff]

So, the system isn't perfect, and yet we go on killing people. Hmm. Additionally, if the state of Texas, which executes more people than 90% of the world's countries, can have a mistake this egregious, at the very least some very real changes need to happen.

and we keep giving out welfare, keep police stations, firefighters, defense budget. all have corruption and fraud. all of these things are bad and not right yet should we get raid of them? no we keep them?

Sorry, I was unaware that welfare killed people.

Well it rips out the collective hearts of Phatscotty and Night Strike...does that count?

[Army of GOD]

I don't understand the DP.

If someone had killed a family member/friend, I'd WANT them to experience a slow death in jail instead of a quick and "allegedly" painless death by execution. Also, not instantly killing someone allows for the possibility of that person being proven innocent.

You can free a guy from jail after 50 years, but you can't bring a dead guy back 50 years later.

[PLAYER57832]

The question isn't whether he's innocent or not. You're kinda right, for all I know he's guilty as sin. But that's irrelevant. We killed him. Are you sure he was guilty without a reasonable doubt? That is the only question that matters. And from where I'm sitting, the answer is a resounding NO.

you say that but we where not there we did not see the trail the jury obviously disagrees with you on this since he was convicted! beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless he waved his right by a trial of his peers but that would be his choice!

It does not seem you have much experience with the justice system. PLEASE investigate!

A lot has to do with the attorney. Everyone is gauranteed an attorney, but public attorneys can be so overrun, they may wind up having to plead a death penalty case after only meeting a few hours with their attorny. Even the best lawyer would have difficulty, but of course many of those who are public attorneys are not the best..t hey are beginning lawyers or ones who don't care or ... well, usually not the best.

And the attorney has a lot to to with jury selection. A good attorney will challenge all types of individuals, hoping to get a sympathetic jury. Many public attorneys just don't have the time and resources to make such investigations and determinations.

So, the system isn't perfect, and yet we go on killing people. Hmm. Additionally, if the state of Texas, which executes more people than 90% of the world's countries, can have a mistake this egregious, at the very least some very real changes need to happen.

and we keep giving out welfare, keep police stations, firefighters, defense budget. all have corruption and fraud. all of these things are bad and not right yet should we get raid of them? no we keep them?

Not sure those other things are as rife with corruption and fraud. In fact, a lot of fire fighting operations are utterly voluntary (though those can have corruption, too). Anyhow, one does not justify the other. We need to tackle all the wrongs, but in a scale, I would say putting an innocent man to death is pretty high up on the "this we will not do" list for a civilized society.

I think you have a strong point, but then I've seen the reliability of death penalty judgments brought up on either side as a case for or against the penalty. The potential incompetence of the process is a big part of why I, and other anti-death penalty advocates, argue that life sentences are better. Sure, they can still be wrong, but they can be at least partially reversible.

like i said before lots of things have problems all we can do is try to fix them

And when all the fixes still don't work, sometimes the real fix it to throw it out and start over. Several states have dismissed the death penalty due to the number of problems found. And I am definitely not talking just about "bleeding heart liberals", either.

[PLAYER57832]

post removed, misread another post

[Army of GOD]

. Also, not instantly killing someone allows for the possibility of that person being proven innocent.

So you consider it OK if the wrong guy is killed? Just so you get your revenge? Because is someone is found innocent, they are the wrong one!

What? I never said it's ok. I said the complete opposite.

[Symmetry]

. Also, not instantly killing someone allows for the possibility of that person being proven innocent.

So you consider it OK if the wrong guy is killed? Just so you get your revenge? Because is someone is found innocent, they are the wrong one!

What? I never said it's ok. I said the complete opposite.

Meh- quote embedding seems to have broken down in this thread.

[Army of GOD]

[img="Symmetry"]

. Also, not instantly killing someone allows for the possibility of that person being proven innocent.

So you consider it OK if the wrong guy is killed? Just so you get your revenge? Because is someone is found innocent, they are the wrong one!

What? I never said it's ok. I said the complete opposite.

Meh- quote embedding seems to have broken down in this thread.[/url]

What are you talking about?

[PLAYER57832]

misread post.. never mind.

[Woodruff]

Here is your full quote:

I don't understand the DP.

If someone had killed a family member/friend, I'd WANT them to experience a slow death in jail instead of a quick and "allegedly" painless death by execution. Also, not instantly killing someone allows for the possibility of that person being proven innocent.

You can free a guy from jail after 50 years, but you can't bring a dead guy back 50 years later.

Maybe you meant to say something other than what you said?

It seems to me that Army of GOD is in agreement with you, PLAYER.

[Army of GOD]

. Also, not instantly killing someone allows for the possibility of that person being proven innocent.

So you consider it OK if the wrong guy is killed? Just so you get your revenge? Because is someone is found innocent, they are the wrong one!

What? I never said it's ok. I said the complete opposite.

Here is your full quote:

I don't understand the DP.

If someone had killed a family member/friend, I'd WANT them to experience a slow death in jail instead of a quick and "allegedly" painless death by execution. Also, not instantly killing someone allows for the possibility of that person being proven innocent.

You can free a guy from jail after 50 years, but you can't bring a dead guy back 50 years later.

Maybe you meant to say something other than what you said?

No? I am completely against the death penalty.

[PLAYER57832]

. Also, not instantly killing someone allows for the possibility of that person being proven innocent.

So you consider it OK if the wrong guy is killed? Just so you get your revenge? Because is someone is found innocent, they are the wrong one!

What? I never said it's ok. I said the complete opposite.

Here is your full quote:

I don't understand the DP.

If someone had killed a family member/friend, I'd WANT them to experience a slow death in jail instead of a quick and "allegedly" painless death by execution. Also, not instantly killing someone allows for the possibility of that person being proven innocent.

You can free a guy from jail after 50 years, but you can't bring a dead guy back 50 years later.

Maybe you meant to say something other than what you said?

No? I am completely against the death penalty.

Mea culpa AGAIN... I need to stop posting when playing speed games. i will correct it when I am not playing a speed game (but keep this apology).


and yes, I have always thought life in prison might be worse than a quick death.

[Symmetry]

Fair enough- any thoughts on the Willingham case? It looks like Death Penalty supporters would like it to quietly go away.

[PLAYER57832]

Fair enough- any thoughts on the Willingham case? It looks like Death Penalty supporters would like it to quietly go away.

It is no longer the "issue tu jour". Now its "socialized medicine will kill us all".

In time, though, it will return.
[note dripping, sarcastic tone]

[AAFitz]

The question isn't whether he's innocent or not. You're kinda right, for all I know he's guilty as sin. But that's irrelevant. We killed him. Are you sure he was guilty without a reasonable doubt? That is the only question that matters. And from where I'm sitting, the answer is a resounding NO.

you say that but we where not there we did not see the trail the jury obviously disagrees with you on this since he was convicted! beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless he waved his right by a trial of his peers but that would be his choice!

[quote=spurigistan]So, the system isn't perfect, and yet we go on killing people. Hmm. Additionally, if the state of Texas, which executes more people than 90% of the world's countries, can have a mistake this egregious, at the very least some very real changes need to happen.

and we keep giving out welfare, keep police stations, firefighters, defense budget. all have corruption and fraud. all of these things are bad and not right yet should we get raid of them? no we keep them?

[quote=Symmetry]I think you have a strong point, but then I've seen the reliability of death penalty judgments brought up on either side as a case for or against the penalty. The potential incompetence of the process is a big part of why I, and other anti-death penalty advocates, argue that life sentences are better. Sure, they can still be wrong, but they can be at least partially reversible.

like i said before lots of things have problems all we can do is try to fix them

This post has quite a few problems of its own. Maybe you should start there.

[Aradhus]

Call me crazy but I'd prefer a miserable existence over none at all.

[Woodruff]

Call me crazy but I'd prefer a miserable existence over none at all.

I'd have to disagree. There are absolutely some "existences" for which I would prefer death. Admittedly VERY few, but there are a few.

[Symmetry]

Call me crazy but I'd prefer a miserable existence over none at all.

I'd have to disagree. There are absolutely some "existences" for which I would prefer death. Admittedly VERY few, but there are a few.

Sure, but this guy was pretty clearly innocent. A miserable existence of life behind bars would have given him longer to fight the lack of evidence. Instead he died with after a conviction every expert considers dodgy.

[Woodruff]

Call me crazy but I'd prefer a miserable existence over none at all.

I'd have to disagree. There are absolutely some "existences" for which I would prefer death. Admittedly VERY few, but there are a few.

Sure, but this guy was pretty clearly innocent. A miserable existence of life behind bars would have given him longer to fight the lack of evidence. Instead he died with after a conviction every expert considers dodgy.

Sure, I'm not arguing that. I agree completely. I was simply responded to his statement as it stood.

[Symmetry]

Call me crazy but I'd prefer a miserable existence over none at all.

I'd have to disagree. There are absolutely some "existences" for which I would prefer death. Admittedly VERY few, but there are a few.

Sure, but this guy was pretty clearly innocent. A miserable existence of life behind bars would have given him longer to fight the lack of evidence. Instead he died with after a conviction every expert considers dodgy.

Sure, I'm not arguing that. I agree completely. I was simply responded to his statement as it stood.

Fair enough- apologies.

[BigBallinStalin]

[quote="Army of GOD"]I don't understand the DP.

If someone had killed a family member/friend, I'd WANT them to experience a slow death in jail instead of a quick and "allegedly" painless death by execution. Also, not instantly killing someone allows for the possibility of that person being proven innocent.

You can free a guy from jail after 50 years, but you can't bring a dead guy back 50 years later.[quote]

Yeah, like your standard of morals should be applied to everyone and everyone scenario.. YEESH.

[Army of GOD]

I don't understand the DP.

If someone had killed a family member/friend, I'd WANT them to experience a slow death in jail instead of a quick and "allegedly" painless death by execution. Also, not instantly killing someone allows for the possibility of that person being proven innocent.

You can free a guy from jail after 50 years, but you can't bring a dead guy back 50 years later.

Yeah, like your standard of morals should be applied to everyone and everyone scenario.. YEESH.

Yes, they should. Or else I'll kill them!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA