Originally Posted by snakespit

The DPIC is also a strongly biased anti-death penalty site. And yes, I saw the 8 "executed but possibly innocent", however I have still not been given 5 examples of innocents executed.

And no, I do not claim that there are trials that can determine innocence after execution...we hold those while they are alive, and before they are sentenced to death. In the absense of being able to examine all evidence, and hear all testimony in a death case, I am forced to defer to the decision of the jury who was presented with all the evidence and heard all of the testimony. I don't sit back and try to Monday morning QB death cases when I don't have all the facts.

I still don't see how you can be convinced that someone who was executed was innocent. You apparently only trust the judgement of the jury yet admit that there are no trials that can determine innocence after execution. Obviously, if someone were found innocent before execution, they would not be executed. Really, what evidence are you looking for and, once again, what is it that you don't find reasonable in the arguements presented for those eight cases in the web site that I referenced. Is it that you automatically distrust everything in that web site because it is anti-death penalty?

Originally Posted by snakespit

Is that what you are referring to?

I thought you had put a harsher condition in another thread, but I don't have time to look for it. This will have to do for now.

Originally Posted by snakespit

How nice for you.

I look at it as punishment, not vengeance. And as for everyone's reasons for or against the death penalty...I could care less. I like to...wait for it...THINK FOR MYSELF, and I personally have no moral objection to punishing someone, even if that punishment is death.

I remember an earlier discussion we had in another thread where you thought that vengeance is only relevant if it is the victim or people who know the victim that are exacting retribution. So, much of our disagreement was on the definition of what we labelled as vengeance. Do you disagree, though, that it is mainly retribution that you are looking for in supporting the death penalty?

Originally Posted by Another opinion

I still don't see how you can be convinced that someone who was executed was innocent. You apparently only trust the judgement of the jury yet admit that there are no trials that can determine innocence after execution. Obviously, if someone were found innocent before execution, they would not be executed.

I trust the jury, and the trial / appeals process that we use prior to execution (although the appeals process needs some streamlining). Why do we need trials after execution? Why do I need to be convinced at all? Why do I need to search for evidence of their innocence?

If they were convicted in a courtof law by a jury of their peers, so be it. They get a fair appeals process, and in most cases (unless you are in Texas or Florida) stand little chance of being executed any time soon anyway. Even in Texas the average time on death row is 10.26 years. If you can't get it together and cast some doubt on your conviction in that amount of time...too bad.

Originally Posted by A o

Really, what evidence are you looking for and, once again, what is it that you don't find reasonable in the arguements presented for those eight cases in the web site that I referenced. Is it that you automatically distrust everything in that web site because it is anti-death penalty

Well, I don't distrust everything that I see on the DPIC website. I do however realize that with their anti-capitol punishment agenda that they tend to only present information and facts that coincide with their agenda, rather than those that go against them.

And what is it that I find laughable about some of the cases presented? Take the case of Cameron Willingham. Now listen, I'm sure that the Chicago Tribune has a well educated and experienced staff of criminal investigators and arson investigators, but I think I will stick with the boots on the ground. For the right amount of money, you can find people to say anything that you want them to say, just look at the Terri Schiavo case. Just because the Chicago Tribune finds some "expert" in the field of arson investigation who examines paper evidence and says their may be cause for doubt does not mean that the man was innocent. The evidence was enough to convince a jury, and every court of appeals that it was presented to. I am comfortable with that.

Date of Execution:
April 26, 2007
Offender:
Dickson, Ryan
Last Statement:
Yes, Sir I do. I'd like to say I love my mother, brother, sister, grandmother, cousins, and nieces, and my brothers and sisters I have never met. I do apologize to the Surace family. I am responsible for them losing their mother, their father, and their grandmother. I never meant for them to be taken. I am sorry for what I did and I take responsibility for what I did. That is all Warden.

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/dicksonryanlast.htm
Since many people seem concerned about innocent people being put to death, would anyone hear have a problem executing this one?

Originally Posted by Another opinion

Do you disagree, though, that it is mainly retribution that you are looking for in supporting the death penalty?

Yes...I do.

Originally Posted by snakespit

I trust the jury, and the trial / appeals process that we use prior to execution (although the appeals process needs some streamlining). Why do we need trials after execution? Why do I need to be convinced at all? Why do I need to search for evidence of their innocence?

If they were convicted in a courtof law by a jury of their peers, so be it. They get a fair appeals process, and in most cases (unless you are in Texas or Florida) stand little chance of being executed any time soon anyway. Even in Texas the average time on death row is 10.26 years. If you can't get it together and cast some doubt on your conviction in that amount of time...too bad.



Well, I don't distrust everything that I see on the DPIC website. I do however realize that with their anti-capitol punishment agenda that they tend to only present information and facts that coincide with their agenda, rather than those that go against them.

And what is it that I find laughable about some of the cases presented? Take the case of Cameron Willingham. Now listen, I'm sure that the Chicago Tribune has a well educated and experienced staff of criminal investigators and arson investigators, but I think I will stick with the boots on the ground. For the right amount of money, you can find people to say anything that you want them to say, just look at the Terri Schiavo case. Just because the Chicago Tribune finds some "expert" in the field of arson investigation who examines paper evidence and says their may be cause for doubt does not mean that the man was innocent. The evidence was enough to convince a jury, and every court of appeals that it was presented to. I am comfortable with that.



http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/dicksonryanlast.htm
Since many people seem concerned about innocent people being put to death, would anyone hear have a problem executing this one?

Yes! Murder is murder and those who execute the death penalty are murderers as well.

Not because it is state approved murder is moral.

THOU SHALL NOT KILL

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Yes! Murder is murder and those who execute the death penalty are murderers as well.

Not because it is state approved murder is moral.

THOU SHALL NOT KILL

Get yourself a newer Bible. It says "Thou shall not commit murder".

Thanks!
Execution of prisoners is murder, state sanctioned murder

murder: to intentionally kill a person

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Thanks!
Execution of prisoners is murder, state sanctioned murder

murder: to intentionally kill a person

That's YOUR interpretation. Is every dead soldier in a war a murder victim whose killer should be prosecuted?

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

Get yourself a newer Bible. It says "Thou shall not commit murder".

Isn't it funny how it changes from 'thou shall not kill' to 'thou shall not commit murder' depending on the argument?

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Thanks!
Execution of prisoners is murder, state sanctioned murder

murder: to intentionally kill a person

substitute or add 'Unlawfully' where you have put 'intentionally' then you might be more accurate and therefore make your first sentence irrelevant

Originally Posted by snakespit

Isn't it funny how it changes from 'thou shall not kill' to 'thou shall not commit murder' depending on the argument?

It's necessary when disengenuous people quote the Bible out of context to support their own agendas.

So let me get this straight, you would violate a womans civil rights to save a fertilized egg, but have no problem killing real people? Wow.

snakespit,

Yes...I do.

I do also!

Originally Posted by peteratwar

substitute or add 'Unlawfully' where you have put 'intentionally' then you might be more accurate and therefore make your first sentence irrelevant

execution of prisoners is lawful murder but murder nevertheless