Death penalty
deephootie
How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
Mitchell Holman
news:e73c97a7.03081...@posting.google.com:
> For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
> How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
>
What posthumous acquittals are those?
z
> For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
> How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
Against.
When Government can't do anything else right, why trust them to kill
citizens?
John Willimans
"deephootie" <manish...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e73c97a7.03081...@posting.google.com...
> For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
> How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted.
I think it is cruel.
I am also a Christian and think that only God has the authority to take
life. Anyone else who does is going against his will.
But I understand those that think it is necessary, I just disagree.
What posthumous aquitals are you referring to? I think there have been a
few in Illinois recently, but I wasn't sure.
Otis
<jo...@no-spam-ever.com> wrote:
>
>"deephootie" <manish...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:e73c97a7.03081...@posting.google.com...
>> For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
>> How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
>
>Amendment VIII
>
>Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
>and unusual punishments inflicted.
>
>
>
>I think it is cruel.
I think it isn't; especially with the advent of lethal injection.
>I am also a Christian and think that only God has the authority to take
>life. Anyone else who does is going against his will.
Your theological views are immaterial.
>But I understand those that think it is necessary, I just disagree.
Those who kill, rape and maim in a heinous fashion deserve no
consideration.
Daniel
> How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
for....in fact, there are a lot more crimes that should get the death
penalty.
shrub
wrote:
>For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
>How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As a much opposed to the taking of life, there are but only a few
instance where the death penalty is considerable. The death penalty is
not in itself a deterent to violent crime, it more often exacted as a
blurring of vengance and justice. We here in the US have the lacking
ability to separate vengence from justice.
just my thoughts
shrub
deephootie
I apologize and jumped the gun. There are no documented cases of this.
deephootie
There are no documented cases of this apperently ... I jumped the gun.
deephootie
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:56:01 GMT, "John Willimans"
> <jo...@no-spam-ever.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"deephootie" <manish...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:e73c97a7.03081...@posting.google.com...
> >> For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
> >> How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
> >
> >Amendment VIII
> >
> >Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
> >and unusual punishments inflicted.
> >
> >
> >
> >I think it is cruel.
>
> I think it isn't; especially with the advent of lethal injection.
>
> >I am also a Christian and think that only God has the authority to take
> >life. Anyone else who does is going against his will.
>
> Your theological views are immaterial.
>
> >But I understand those that think it is necessary, I just disagree.
>
> Those who kill, rape and maim in a heinous fashion deserve no
> consideration.
>
Do you think w/i the last 50 years or so a innocent person has been
put to death? Why or why not?
Do you think there is a possability that w/i the next 100 years ,if we
use current methodolgies, that a innocent person would be put to
death? Why or why not.
Mitchell Holman
> Mitchell Holman <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93D65FD00...@204.127.199.17>...
>> manish...@yahoo.com (deephootie) wrote in
>> news:e73c97a7.03081...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
>> > How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
>> >
>>
>> What posthumous acquittals are those?
>
> I apologize and jumped the gun. There are no documented cases of this.
Indeed. Plenty of death row prisoners
have found to be innocent, but none after
their executions.
That day is coming, however.............
Mitchell Holman
"Evidence of innocence is irrelevant."
The appeals attorney for the state of Virgina, arguing
that Roger Coleman should be executed despite new evidence
showing his innocence. He was executed later the same year.
John Willimans
> <jo...@no-spam-ever.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"deephootie" <manish...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:e73c97a7.03081...@posting.google.com...
> >> For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
> >> How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
> >
> >Amendment VIII
> >
> >Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel
> >and unusual punishments inflicted.
> >
> >
> >
> >I think it is cruel.
>
> I think it isn't; especially with the advent of lethal injection.
>
So we disagree. Apparently I am in the minority. I am ok with that.
> >I am also a Christian and think that only God has the authority to take
> >life. Anyone else who does is going against his will.
>
> Your theological views are immaterial.
>
They are as important as your views. Period.
> >But I understand those that think it is necessary, I just disagree.
>
> Those who kill, rape and maim in a heinous fashion deserve no
> consideration.
>
You are entitled to that opinion.
George Washington
> How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
Against. Too prone to error, rushing to judgement, and too selective (as
the Supreme Court once ruled)
Killing people is wrong.
George Washington
>
> "Otis" <otis_p_d...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:m61ljvoudmt9orkqh...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:56:01 GMT, "John Willimans"
> > <jo...@no-spam-ever.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"deephootie" <manish...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:e73c97a7.03081...@posting.google.com...
> > >> For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
> > >> How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
> > >
> > >Amendment VIII
> > >
> > >Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
> cruel
> > >and unusual punishments inflicted.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >I think it is cruel.
> >
> > I think it isn't; especially with the advent of lethal injection.
> >
>
> So we disagree. Apparently I am in the minority. I am ok with that.
And you disagree civilly, thanks. Hint, "Otis".
Ashland Henderson
> For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
> How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
Against. I used to be for it but I have since concluded that the
chances of executing an innocent person are too great to play with.
If there were a sure method of identifying the guilty I wouldn't
oppose the death penalty. Such a method does not appear to be
within our current capabilities.
anon
in prison.
"deephootie" <manish...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e73c97a7.03081...@posting.google.com...
anon
"z" <z...@yada.yada.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93D664EA5E6...@206.127.4.22...
anon
humane. Hanging, the gas chamber or the electric chair is
more punitive. The pain of dying should be extended as long
as possible to give the asshole a chance to repent his
crime. All executions should be aired on TV to give maximize
the deterrent factor.
"Ashland Henderson" <macea...@astound.net> wrote in
message
news:441d41d1.03081...@posting.google.com...
James Hall
"Ashland Henderson" <macea...@astound.net> wrote in message
news:441d41d1.03081...@posting.google.com...
Mitchell Holman
> I'm for it - because life in prison almost never means life
> in prison.
Tell that Richard Speck, Jeffrey Dahmer,
Henry Lee Lucas, et al.......
Mitchell Holman
> The main problem with the lethal injection is it is too
> humane. Hanging, the gas chamber or the electric chair is
> more punitive. The pain of dying should be extended as long
> as possible to give the asshole a chance to repent his
> crime. All executions should be aired on TV to give maximize
> the deterrent factor.
Which part of the 14th century
are you posting from?
deephootie
Like? How does the possibility of a "False positive" ie. killing an
innocent person affect you opinion?
z
> Convicted murders are not citizens.
>
>> > For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
>> > How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into
> play?
>>
>> Against.
>>
>> When Government can't do anything else right, why trust
> them to kill
>> citizens?
>
anon top poster:
so what country do they belong to then?
Ashland Henderson
> The main problem with the lethal injection is it is too
> humane. Hanging, the gas chamber or the electric chair is
> more punitive. The pain of dying should be extended as long
> as possible to give the asshole a chance to repent his
> crime. All executions should be aired on TV to give maximize
> the deterrent factor.
All studies seem to show that the death penalty deters nothing.
In any case, some of us are civilized. As long as the death
penalty is used do it quick and clean. If you wish to lower
yourself to the same level as the guilty that's your problem.
If you have to get rid of a mad dog just do it, don't torture
it.
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Ashland Henderson wrote:
> manish...@yahoo.com (deephootie) wrote in message news:<e73c97a7.03081...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
>>How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
>
>
> Against. I used to be for it but I have since concluded that the
> chances of executing an innocent person are too great to play with.
So even if Osama bin Laden were convicted of 9-11, you wouldn't even
want to see him executed?
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Ashland Henderson wrote:
> "anon" <an...@dotl.com> wrote in message news:<4G-dneszDNk...@giganews.com>...
>
>>The main problem with the lethal injection is it is too
>>humane. Hanging, the gas chamber or the electric chair is
>>more punitive. The pain of dying should be extended as long
>>as possible to give the asshole a chance to repent his
>>crime. All executions should be aired on TV to give maximize
>>the deterrent factor.
>
>
> All studies seem to show that the death penalty deters nothing.
> In any case, some of us are civilized.
And some, like Osama bin Laden, are not.
What punishment do YOU think would be appropriate for bin Laden, after
he's caught and convicted of 9-11?
Steven D. Litvintchouk
George Washington wrote:
Once he's caught and convicted, Osama bin Laden MUST be executed for
what he caused on 9-11. No other punishment makes sense for that atrocity.
Certainly not to feed him, shelter him, give him free medical care, and
let him write his memoirs and encourage his followers, for the rest of
his life, all at U.S. taxpayer expense.
Not one PENNY of U.S. taxpayer money should go to keeping Osama bin
Laden alive for one day. We find him, we convict him, we execute him.
End of story.
Otis
<sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>
>George Washington wrote:
>
>> "deephootie" <manish...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:e73c97a7.03081...@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
>>>How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
>>
>>
>> Against. Too prone to error, rushing to judgement, and too selective (as
>> the Supreme Court once ruled)
>>
>> Killing people is wrong.
>
>Once he's caught and convicted, Osama bin Laden MUST be executed for
>what he caused on 9-11. No other punishment makes sense for that atrocity.
Make sure to use pigskin as his shroud.
hc23hc
>
> Ashland Henderson wrote:
>
> > manish...@yahoo.com (deephootie) wrote
> >
> >
> > chances of executing an innocent person are too great to play with.
>
> So even if Osama bin Laden were convicted of 9-11, you wouldn't even
> want to see him executed?
Even when Bush is convicted of 9-11, better to keep him incarcerated.
.
.
.
SB...@mtn.net
Arthur Anderson, Enron, and Bechtel! How about that bastard that ran Montana
Power into the dirt? They could all use a good airing out.
Sam
Steven D. Litvintchouk
hc23hc wrote:
After you are convicted of treason, you can follow Osama bin Laden into
the gas chamber.
shrub
>The main problem with the lethal injection is it is too
>humane. Hanging, the gas chamber or the electric chair is
>more punitive. The pain of dying should be extended as long
>as possible to give the asshole a chance to repent his
>crime. All executions should be aired on TV to give maximize
>the deterrent factor.
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you as ignorant of the Constittution of the US or just cannot
read? Either way there is a provison for cruel and unusual punishment.
Or could it be that justice and revenge have the same meaning in your
dictionary?
just a thought
shrub
Niloc
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:46:18 GMT, "Steven D. Litvintchouk"
> <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>>Once he's caught and convicted, Osama bin Laden MUST be executed for
>>what he caused on 9-11.
>
> You do understand that other than possibly fabricated US 'intelligence'
> there is nothing linking Bin Laden to 911.
They don't hear it because they simply don't want to. There have been
numerous accounts in the media(non-US media of course) that US translators
totally made up portions of the tapes making USAma sound guilty. They would
probably have more luck finding him if they looked in the witness
protection program in Ohio.
hc23hc
>
> hc23hc wrote:
>
> > Steven "Di" Livinpuke wrote:
> >
> >>Ashland Henderson wrote:
> >>
> >>>manish...@yahoo.com (deephootie) wrote
> >>>
> >>>>For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
> >>>
> >>>Against. I used to be for it but I have since concluded that the
> >>>chances of executing an innocent person are too great to play with.
> >>
> >>So even if Osama bin Laden were convicted of 9-11, you wouldn't even
> >>want to see him executed?
> >
> > Even when Bush is convicted of 9-11, better to keep him incarcerated.
>
> After you are convicted of treason, you can follow Osama bin Laden into
> the gas chamber.
We'll see how things play after you follow "W" into
his sacrificial bed chamber at Bohemian Grove, Puke !
.
.
.
Ashland Henderson
> Ashland Henderson wrote:
>
> > "anon" <an...@dotl.com> wrote in message news:<4G-dneszDNk...@giganews.com>...
> >
> >>The main problem with the lethal injection is it is too
> >>humane. Hanging, the gas chamber or the electric chair is
> >>more punitive. The pain of dying should be extended as long
> >>as possible to give the asshole a chance to repent his
> >>crime. All executions should be aired on TV to give maximize
> >>the deterrent factor.
> >
> >
> > All studies seem to show that the death penalty deters nothing.
> > In any case, some of us are civilized.
>
> And some, like Osama bin Laden, are not.
>
> What punishment do YOU think would be appropriate for bin Laden, after
> he's caught and convicted of 9-11?
Being against the death penalty, I'm against the death penalty. Nothing is
easy and if you aren't prepared to pay the price in your beliefs you should
consider changing them. If I believed in the death penalty I'd believe he
should be executed. Quickly and cleanly with a minimum of pain, mainly because
I'm civilized.
Ashland Henderson
> Ashland Henderson wrote:
>
> > manish...@yahoo.com (deephootie) wrote in message news:<e73c97a7.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >>For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
> >>How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
> >
> >
> > Against. I used to be for it but I have since concluded that the
> > chances of executing an innocent person are too great to play with.
>
> So even if Osama bin Laden were convicted of 9-11, you wouldn't even
> want to see him executed?
I'm not in favor of the death penalty. That's the way it is. My beliefs
and I stand by them.
Ashland Henderson
>
> > manish...@yahoo.com (deephootie) wrote in message news:<e73c97a7.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >>For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
> >>How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
> >
> >
> > Against. I used to be for it but I have since concluded that the
> > chances of executing an innocent person are too great to play with.
>
> So even if Osama bin Laden were convicted of 9-11, you wouldn't even
> want to see him executed?
If you don't stand by your beliefs then you end up swaying in the wind.
I'm not interested in swaying.
Raide...@rainbowwarrier.org
> penalty.
How about spousal abuse, wife-beater?
> "Daniel" <sabot...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
> i have been arrested 4 times, twice for warrants from a
> reckless driving conviction, and twice for claims of
> domestic violence.
> "Daniel" <sabot...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
> wow. one reckless driving charge, and 2 domestic violence arrests
Len
>life. Anyone else who does is going against his will.
That Guy you follow practiced what you preach against.
Also Matthew 18:6 has a reason as well.
>But I understand those that think it is necessary, I just disagree.
Yes sir. Kewel.
Len
>> penalty.
>Like? How does the possibility of a "False positive" ie. killing an
>innocent person affect you opinion?
How does the possibility of killing a guilty person affect your
opinion?
Len
>> How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
>Against. Too prone to error, rushing to judgement, and too selective (as
>the Supreme Court once ruled)
>Killing people is wrong.
And based on THAT moral principle the state shall show the sanctity of
life by executing after the long and arduous process of seeking the
truth via 12 agreements, after presenting an argument of facts and
evidence, appeals of the process of the argument, and great solemnity
in the execution itself.
It is PROOF that killing people is a serious and somber issue and thus
justifies the very proposition. It makes the innocent's life "sacred"
to the state, which is there to protect and honor each individual and
give meaning to their life. It is NOT done in the heat, or back alley,
or whimsical nature, but rather in a precise and painfully deliberate
manner. It works.
Len
>> humane. Hanging, the gas chamber or the electric chair is
>> more punitive. The pain of dying should be extended as long
>> as possible to give the asshole a chance to repent his
>> crime. All executions should be aired on TV to give maximize
>> the deterrent factor.
> Which part of the 14th century
>are you posting from?
The "reality tv" part.
Len
>in prison.
That is because of the slippery slope argument that many use when
arguing away from the death penalty. Downhill all the way.
With folks not believing in God anymore, then they fear being
judgmental.
Thom
<sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>
>George Washington wrote:
>
>> "deephootie" <manish...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:e73c97a7.03081...@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
>>>How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
>>
>>
>> Against. Too prone to error, rushing to judgement, and too selective (as
>> the Supreme Court once ruled)
>>
>> Killing people is wrong.
>
>Once he's caught and convicted, Osama bin Laden MUST be executed for
>what he caused on 9-11. No other punishment makes sense for that atrocity.
real smart, lets make the religious nut into a myrtar.
>
>Certainly not to feed him, shelter him, give him free medical care, and
>let him write his memoirs and encourage his followers, for the rest of
>his life, all at U.S. taxpayer expense.
>Not one PENNY of U.S. taxpayer money should go to keeping Osama bin
>Laden alive for one day. We find him, we convict him, we execute him.
>End of story.
Put him in a Texas prison and when he gets hemroids deny medical care.
No paper or pen, no computers, no phone calls, treat him poorly....
wait a minute we're already doing that... send him to GITMO.
THOM
deephootie
Thats one of the reasons why I am against it. Eventhough there are no
documented cases of innocent people being put to death I believe that
there has been by the sheer fact that advacement in biology has
exonerated many people who have been convicted.
deephootie
All good points. But we have seen the justice system fail innocent
people and there are many documented cases of this so in essence it
works somteimes.
anon
"z" <z...@yada.yada.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93D757C1290...@206.127.4.22...
anon
sins? True justice comes at the end of a rope.
"shrub" <sh...@budu.edu> wrote in message
news:0beojvohi1emi3gng...@4ax.com...
Len
>> opinion?
>Thats one of the reasons why I am against it. Eventhough there are no
>documented cases of innocent people being put to death I believe that
>there has been by the sheer fact that advacement in biology has
>exonerated many people who have been convicted.
You have escaped me. Your deepness, hootie, is beyond me.
I ask one question and you answer to some other bell.
BTW, some folks claim we have executed innocent people.
I'll never know, but my question still stands.
Len
Last count had 33 that DNA exonerated. That does not mean they were
not guilty.
But I acknowledge your argument, and out of the thousands of guys on
death row awaiting punishment, the justice system is there to
guarantee the system gave them as fair a break as possible.
Furthermore the Supreme Courts notion that the jury system may be too
quick to judge is simply a slight on the judges that try the case.
Len
>> he's caught and convicted of 9-11?
>Being against the death penalty, I'm against the death penalty. Nothing is
>easy and if you aren't prepared to pay the price in your beliefs you should
>consider changing them. If I believed in the death penalty I'd believe he
>should be executed. Quickly and cleanly with a minimum of pain, mainly because
>I'm civilized.
The attitude kills me.
Is it because you are a civilized you would mandate a quick clean
execution?
Or is it because you mandate a quick and clean execution, THAT makes
you civilized?
And every person, by your definition, that wants another way of
execution is below your line of civilization? We are barbarians?
Simply because we do not wish to execute in cold blood, cleanly, and
quickly.
It is not the argument, it is the attitude!
Len
>> penalty.
>How about spousal abuse, wife-beater?
Maybe not death, but something "special"
Mitchell Holman
news:fr9sjvsrqt9g23got...@4ax.com:
>>> >> For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
>>> >> How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
>>>
>>> >Against. Too prone to error, rushing to judgement, and too
>>> >selective (as the Supreme Court once ruled)
>>>
>>> >Killing people is wrong.
>>>
>>> And based on THAT moral principle the state shall show the sanctity
>>> of life by executing after the long and arduous process of seeking
>>> the truth via 12 agreements, after presenting an argument of facts
>>> and evidence, appeals of the process of the argument, and great
>>> solemnity in the execution itself.
>>> It is PROOF that killing people is a serious and somber issue and
>>> thus justifies the very proposition. It makes the innocent's life
>>> "sacred" to the state, which is there to protect and honor each
>>> individual and give meaning to their life. It is NOT done in the
>>> heat, or back alley, or whimsical nature, but rather in a precise
>>> and painfully deliberate manner. It works.
>
>>All good points. But we have seen the justice system fail innocent
>>people and there are many documented cases of this so in essence it
>>works somteimes.
>
> Last count had 33 that DNA exonerated. That does not mean they were
> not guilty.
Exonerated by DNA but guilty anyway?
Angel
> >> How does the possibility of killing a guilty person affect your
> >> opinion?
>
> >Thats one of the reasons why I am against it. Eventhough there are no
> >documented cases of innocent people being put to death I believe that
> >there has been by the sheer fact that advacement in biology has
> >exonerated many people who have been convicted.
>
> You have escaped me.
His brain escaped his body years ago.
Angel
Please make suggestions. Also for people who beat their kids. I don't mean a
spanking--that doesn't bother me. I mean when a kid is hit with a fist in
the face by someone bigger than them not in self defense or when a kid gets
its head bashed through a wall because the big person was banging the kid's
head against the wall.
shrub
>What's cruel about giving a dying man a chance to repent his
>sins? True justice comes at the end of a rope.
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The death penalty has nothing to do with death bed repentances. We are
no longer in the Spanish Inquisition. I guess you feel that your
penitance is served by the fact that the condemmed had a last chance
to repent so you are absolved of any sin yourself.
The cruel and unusaul provision in the Constitution prohibits teh
types of exicutions that are long and drawn out. In fact why hanging
is no longer used is because if improperly administered teh death is
long and drawn out. But if done properly, it is quick as the body hits
the end of the rope teh neck snaps and death can be near
instantaneous.
Besides many tend to blur revenge and jsutice to mean the same.
just my thoughts
shrub
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Ashland Henderson wrote:
So what punishment would you suggest instead? Keeping him in life
imprisonment at taxpayer expense? So that until he finally dies of old
age, every terrorist group in the world will try to take Americans
hostage and threaten to kill them unless he's released? Or threatening
to release a WMD in an American city unless he's released? Wanna bet
the Government will cave in to the terrorists' demands and let him go free?
The only way to make sure bin Laden stays punished, is to kill him.
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Ashland Henderson wrote:
How about if bin Laden is killed in the middle of a firefight between
his guys and our troops, as Saddam's two sons were?
Nothing says our troops have to first ask bin Laden to surrender. We
spot him hiding in some cave, we just pour enough hot lead in there to
make sure he never comes out alive.
SB...@mtn.net
says...
Ok, I'll respect that. I got no quarrel with Quakers. They ain't done me no
harm.
How about we drag Ken Leahy & all those other crooked Enron fuckers out in the
parking lot and horsewhip their sorry asses, run them out of town
on a rail, and divy up their stuff for the employees and investors?
Friend of mine and ex-Texan says he challenged Tom DeLay to a fistfight and
DeLay squealled like a pig and ran off behind his momma's skirt. Now
my friend was deep in his tequilla at that moment - so he may have been just
blowin smoke. But, as I recall, DeLay said he didn't join the army
because of something that had to do with too many "negros."
Sounds like a pussy excuse to me!
Sam
S
SB...@mtn.net
Litvintchouk says...
What makes you believe that bin Laden will allow himself to be taken alive?
Sa
SB...@mtn.net
Maybe because they do believe in God - they're afraid to judge. Jesus said
"judge not...etc."
I always took that to be a bit abstract. Still, Jesus was hung up like a common
rebel criminal and maybe Christians, the sincere ones anyway, stop
and think about the irony.
Of course, those Bible-thumping hypocrites ain't got the wit to stop and
actually think about much.
Sam
Ashland Henderson
Everyone has their own view of what civilization is. Personally I would
define it among other things as not committing murder, judicial or otherwise.
I don't regard the legal execution of guilty people as murder. However, I
don't have a simple faith in the jury system of law and it's ability to
determine who is guilty. If the system were foolproof, all persons involved
were honest and upright, and we could absolutely know who the guilty person
is, I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty. The system isn't
foolproof, we do have some corrupt people involved in it, and we can't
absolutely know who is guilty. I prefer to err on the side of safety so
as to not accidentally execute an innocent person.
You are of course free to believe whatever you please. But then so am I.
Ashland Henderson
> Ashland Henderson wrote:
>
> > "Steven D. Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:<1HT_a.1236$f15.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> >
> >>Ashland Henderson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>manish...@yahoo.com (deephootie) wrote in message news:<e73c97a7.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
> >>>>How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Against. I used to be for it but I have since concluded that the
> >>>chances of executing an innocent person are too great to play with.
> >>
> >>So even if Osama bin Laden were convicted of 9-11, you wouldn't even
> >>want to see him executed?
> >
> >
> > If you don't stand by your beliefs then you end up swaying in the wind.
> > I'm not interested in swaying.
>
> So what punishment would you suggest instead? Keeping him in life
> imprisonment at taxpayer expense? So that until he finally dies of old
> age, every terrorist group in the world will try to take Americans
> hostage and threaten to kill them unless he's released? Or threatening
> to release a WMD in an American city unless he's released? Wanna bet
> the Government will cave in to the terrorists' demands and let him go free?
You are welcome to prefer martyrs. It cuts no odds either way.
> The only way to make sure bin Laden stays punished, is to kill him.
Should you come up with a way to insure that only the guilty are punished
do let us know.
Ashland Henderson
> hc23hc wrote:
>
> > Steven "Di" Livinpuke wrote:
> >
> >>Ashland Henderson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>manish...@yahoo.com (deephootie) wrote
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>chances of executing an innocent person are too great to play with.
> >>
> >>So even if Osama bin Laden were convicted of 9-11, you wouldn't even
> >>want to see him executed?
> >
> >
>
> After you are convicted of treason, you can follow Osama bin Laden into
> the gas chamber.
Get a grip. If Bush were convicted of 9/11 I'd say the same thing, keep
him locked up. Since Bush isn't going to be convicted and I don't consider
it at all likely that he had anything to do with it, it's not an issue.
Ashland Henderson
> In article <441d41d1.03081...@posting.google.com>, Ashland Henderson
> says...
> >
> >"Steven D. Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:<1HT_a.1236$f15.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> >> Ashland Henderson wrote:
> >>
> >> > manish...@yahoo.com (deephootie) wrote in message news:<e73c97a7.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> >> >
> >> >>For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
> >> >>How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Against. I used to be for it but I have since concluded that the
> >> > chances of executing an innocent person are too great to play with.
> >>
> >> So even if Osama bin Laden were convicted of 9-11, you wouldn't even
> >> want to see him executed?
> >
> >I'm not in favor of the death penalty. That's the way it is. My beliefs
> >and I stand by them.
>
> Ok, I'll respect that. I got no quarrel with Quakers. They ain't done me no
> harm.
I'm not a Quaker. My opposition to the death penalty is rooted in the lack
of assurance that the guilty has been identified, not that death is necessarily
immoral.
> How about we drag Ken Leahy & all those other crooked Enron fuckers out in the
> parking lot and horsewhip their sorry asses, run them out of town
> on a rail, and divy up their stuff for the employees and investors?
Nice thought. I wouldn't go with it but it's not really inappropriate.
> Friend of mine and ex-Texan says he challenged Tom DeLay to a fistfight and
> DeLay squealled like a pig and ran off behind his momma's skirt. Now
> my friend was deep in his tequilla at that moment - so he may have been just
> blowin smoke. But, as I recall, DeLay said he didn't join the army
> because of something that had to do with too many "negros."
>
> Sounds like a pussy excuse to me!
Some of us joined the military, some of us joined the national guard, some
of us had other things to do. I don't object to someone who had other things
to do unless they are one of those who also think we should use military force
all the time. People who talk the talk should also walk the walk.
hc23hc
>
> SB...@mtn.net wrote
> > How about we drag Ken Leahy & all those other crooked Enron fuckers out in the
> > parking lot and horsewhip their sorry asses, run them out of town
> > on a rail, and divy up their stuff for the employees and investors?
>
> Nice thought. I wouldn't go with it but it's not really inappropriate.
Death Penalty - Lay Lynching ... can't have one without the other.
> > Friend of mine and ex-Texan says he challenged Tom DeLay to a fistfight and
> > DeLay squealled like a pig and ran off behind his momma's skirt. Now
> > my friend was deep in his tequilla at that moment - so he may have been just
> > blowin smoke. But, as I recall, DeLay said he didn't join the army
> > because of something that had to do with too many "negros."
>
> Some of us joined the military, some of us joined the national guard, some
> of us had other things to do. I don't object to someone who had other things
> to do unless they are one of those who also think we should use military force
> all the time. People who talk the talk should also walk the walk.
I was explaining that to Dirty Uncle Jafo, but he got
too busy trying to hock the chalk, the old chickenhawk.
.
.
.
Len
Q: "OK, so it wasn't your sperm in her vagina, but you held her down
before she died. And it wasn't your prints on the knife, but it was
your scarf at the scene, and the third guy said you were there".
Imagine that.
Len
>> >> he's caught and convicted of 9-11?
>> >Being against the death penalty, I'm against the death penalty. Nothing is
>> >easy and if you aren't prepared to pay the price in your beliefs you should
>> >consider changing them. If I believed in the death penalty I'd believe he
>> >should be executed. Quickly and cleanly with a minimum of pain, mainly because
>> >I'm civilized.
>> The attitude kills me.
>> Is it because you are a civilized you would mandate a quick clean
>> execution?
>> Or is it because you mandate a quick and clean execution, THAT makes
>> you civilized?
>> And every person, by your definition, that wants another way of
>> execution is below your line of civilization? We are barbarians?
>> Simply because we do not wish to execute in cold blood, cleanly, and
>> quickly.
>> It is not the argument, it is the attitude!
>Everyone has their own view of what civilization is. Personally I would
>define it among other things as not committing murder, judicial or otherwise.
You are right and I support the above. The gentle people of the earth
should rule, live, love, and have a free life. I truly agree that one
aspect of civilization should be defined as such. And then there is
the planet we live on until that time.
>I don't regard the legal execution of guilty people as murder.
Quizzle that!
I do not regard it as such, that is why we have an other word,
execution, for it the taking of that life.
But then that puts the state in a very awkward position of
"superiority" and "right". I agree, in a sense, but then you are
defeating your own position, no?
> However, I
>don't have a simple faith in the jury system of law and it's ability to
>determine who is guilty.
Though it may be the worst found, it is far better than what is second
best.
> If the system were foolproof, all persons involved
>were honest and upright, and we could absolutely know who the guilty person
>is, I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty. The system isn't
>foolproof, we do have some corrupt people involved in it, and we can't
>absolutely know who is guilty. I prefer to err on the side of safety so
>as to not accidentally execute an innocent person.
Again, I agree. I guess you would not execute one who is caught on
tape, eyewitness accounts, admits the deed, along with
incontrovertible evidence? Even then?
You mention honest and upright people, and I have to laugh. They
wouldn't be doing the crime, no? No, maybe I am wrong about that.
And the corrupt ones, as the officials, cops, judges, court officers,
etc. maybe they can get it right, just by serendipity? Oh well.
I've read in Japan the bad guys expect to get caught and when done
admit to their crime, as that is the cultural expectation. We here
promote lying by having the culture set up in such a manner, and I am
not castigating the judicial process, before you jump on that, but
about not taking responsibility for one's actions.
>You are of course free to believe whatever you please. But then so am I.
We would never have it otherwise. Thanks for the exchange.
Len
>> easy and if you aren't prepared to pay the price in your beliefs you should
>> consider changing them. If I believed in the death penalty I'd believe he
>> should be executed. Quickly and cleanly with a minimum of pain, mainly because
>> I'm civilized.
>How about if bin Laden is killed in the middle of a firefight between
>his guys and our troops, as Saddam's two sons were?
>Nothing says our troops have to first ask bin Laden to surrender. We
>spot him hiding in some cave, we just pour enough hot lead in there to
>make sure he never comes out alive.
That is not an execution, nor have death penalty issues involved. That
is called warfare and due process is not at hand.
It is also called happiness for some, but it is only a fleeting and
elusive thing.
Len
>is no longer used is because if improperly administered teh death is
>long and drawn out. But if done properly, it is quick as the body hits
>the end of the rope teh neck snaps and death can be near
>instantaneous.
Practice, practice, practice.
Len
>What makes you believe that bin Laden will allow himself to be taken alive?
What makes you believe our government would want to take him alive?
Holding up his severed head would quell a lot of the nonsense for a
lot of people. Taking him alive would be just the opposite.
Len
>>>in prison.
>>That is because of the slippery slope argument that many use when
>>arguing away from the death penalty. Downhill all the way.
>>With folks not believing in God anymore, then they fear being
>>judgmental.
>Maybe because they do believe in God - they're afraid to judge. Jesus said
>"judge not...etc."
>I always took that to be a bit abstract. Still, Jesus was hung up like a common
>rebel criminal and maybe Christians, the sincere ones anyway, stop
>and think about the irony.
Couple of ironies: even the sincere ones would hang Him up again.
It is more than a bit abstract, it is confounding.
He should folks The Way, execution wise.
>Of course, those Bible-thumping hypocrites ain't got the wit to stop and
>actually think about much.
As oppose to the non-Bible thumping hypocrites?
Or the not-hypocrites? If that's the case, call me up, cause I got ta
meet THEM.
Len
>> >> penalty.
>> >How about spousal abuse, wife-beater?
>> Maybe not death, but something "special"
>Please make suggestions. Also for people who beat their kids. I don't mean a
>spanking--that doesn't bother me. I mean when a kid is hit with a fist in
>the face by someone bigger than them not in self defense or when a kid gets
>its head bashed through a wall because the big person was banging the kid's
>head against the wall.
Well, we could just let the moment get caught up in itself and go with
the flow, and all that jazz.
I've always enjoyed biology.
Mitchell Holman
4ax.com:
Instead of hypotheticals why not post an
actual case where someone was exhonerated
by DNA but guilty anyway?
PS: That was the theory in Texas v Criner,
but fortunately it didn't work.
Laura Bush - America's kid-killer
So spanking is ok? Whipping a kid's butt until he's bleeding is
alright but punching him in the nose is wrong???
Len
>>>> not guilty.
>>> Exonerated by DNA but guilty anyway?
>> Q: "OK, so it wasn't your sperm in her vagina, but you held her down
>> before she died. And it wasn't your prints on the knife, but it was
>> your scarf at the scene, and the third guy said you were there".
>> Imagine that.
> Instead of hypotheticals why not post an
>actual case where someone was exhonerated
>by DNA but guilty anyway?
Cited above is not a death penalty case. Simply an example of guilt
involved in a murder. That guy later killed two others, but what the
hell, one was a hooker, another a homeless 7 y/o girl. Nobody will
miss them. And the mom was never found.
Not hypotheticals.
The Pervert
"Laura Bush - America's kid-killer" <pigfa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e2eb3c97.0308...@posting.google.com...
> "Angel" <thecomput...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:<par%a.8427$Ih1.2...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>...
> >
> > Please make suggestions. Also for people who beat their kids. I don't
mean a
> > spanking--that doesn't bother me. I mean when a kid is hit with a fist
in
> > the face by someone bigger than them not in self defense or when a kid
gets
> > its head bashed through a wall because the big person was banging the
kid's
> > head against the wall.
>
> So spanking is ok? Whipping a kid's butt until he's bleeding is
> alright but punching him in the nose is wrong???
Where was the part about "whipping a kid's butt until he's bleedeing"
mentioned? It wasn't. You made that part up. Spanking was mentioned,
that's all. No mention of whipping or bleeding anything else. (Maybe those
items were just part of your personal fantasy. If so, I really don't want
to know about it.)
Ashland Henderson
I agree. What I'm saying is that we don't have a generalized method of
telling who is truely guilty. We certainly have people we know are
guilty but we have no real way of applying it across the board. We don't
even have any real way of preventing someone from concocting evidence to
prove guilt.
> > If the system were foolproof, all persons involved
> >were honest and upright, and we could absolutely know who the guilty person
> >is, I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty. The system isn't
> >foolproof, we do have some corrupt people involved in it, and we can't
> >absolutely know who is guilty. I prefer to err on the side of safety so
> >as to not accidentally execute an innocent person.
>
> Again, I agree. I guess you would not execute one who is caught on
> tape, eyewitness accounts, admits the deed, along with
> incontrovertible evidence? Even then?
Only because the law should be impartial and treat all offenses
the same. This would undoubtable mean that people incontrovertably
guilty would not be executed. To me that is preferable to the
execution of an innocent person.
Ashland Henderson
> Ashland Henderson wrote:
>
> > "Steven D. Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:<7IT_a.1237$f15.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> >
> >>Ashland Henderson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"anon" <an...@dotl.com> wrote in message news:<4G-dneszDNk...@giganews.com>...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The main problem with the lethal injection is it is too
> >>>>humane. Hanging, the gas chamber or the electric chair is
> >>>>more punitive. The pain of dying should be extended as long
> >>>>as possible to give the asshole a chance to repent his
> >>>>crime. All executions should be aired on TV to give maximize
> >>>>the deterrent factor.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>All studies seem to show that the death penalty deters nothing.
> >>>In any case, some of us are civilized.
> >>
> >>And some, like Osama bin Laden, are not.
> >>
> >>What punishment do YOU think would be appropriate for bin Laden, after
> >>he's caught and convicted of 9-11?
> >
> >
> > Being against the death penalty, I'm against the death penalty. Nothing is
> > easy and if you aren't prepared to pay the price in your beliefs you should
> > consider changing them. If I believed in the death penalty I'd believe he
> > should be executed. Quickly and cleanly with a minimum of pain, mainly because
> > I'm civilized.
>
> How about if bin Laden is killed in the middle of a firefight between
> his guys and our troops, as Saddam's two sons were?
If that happens it happens. Has nothing to do with the justice system.
> Nothing says our troops have to first ask bin Laden to surrender. We
> spot him hiding in some cave, we just pour enough hot lead in there to
> make sure he never comes out alive.
That's called execution. There would be serious questions under military
law whether such an action would be legal. But then it wouldn't be reported
that way. Mind you, if people fire at you, you are certainly entitled to fire
back. If you shoot someone who is helpless it is legally murder whether or
not you are in the military.
Ashland Henderson
Holding up his severed head would produce one hell of a martyr for his
cause, whatever that is. Capturing him alive might well do the same but
strikes me as probably marginally safer. Either way causes trouble.
anon
AND when he was convicted? AND when he was executed?
"Ashland Henderson" <macea...@astound.net> wrote in
message
news:441d41d1.03081...@posting.google.com...
Len
>> >don't have a simple faith in the jury system of law and it's ability to
>> >determine who is guilty.
>> Though it may be the worst found, it is far better than what is second
>> best.
>I agree. What I'm saying is that we don't have a generalized method of
>telling who is truely guilty. We certainly have people we know are
>guilty but we have no real way of applying it across the board. We don't
>even have any real way of preventing someone from concocting evidence to
>prove guilt.
Wait. Each individual case stands on its own merits. So we do not need
a method to find absolute truth every time. If THIS guy is guilty
because of case elements, then convict.
If we do come up with an absolute method every time, foolproof, would
that change most folks' mind? Yours?
>> > If the system were foolproof, all persons involved
>> >were honest and upright, and we could absolutely know who the guilty person
>> >is, I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty. The system isn't
>> >foolproof, we do have some corrupt people involved in it, and we can't
>> >absolutely know who is guilty. I prefer to err on the side of safety so
>> >as to not accidentally execute an innocent person.
>>
>> Again, I agree. I guess you would not execute one who is caught on
>> tape, eyewitness accounts, admits the deed, along with
>> incontrovertible evidence? Even then?
>
>Only because the law should be impartial and treat all offenses
>the same. This would undoubtable mean that people incontrovertably
>guilty would not be executed. To me that is preferable to the
>execution of an innocent person.
I am sorry. I do not understand the above well.
Are you telling me that there is no difference between a planned,
methodical, and malice murder with eyewitness, self-confession, and
evidence as oppose to you and I go into a bar to have a beer and three
hours later someone winds up dead due to a heated discussion and
subsequent bar fight were one hits there head on the floor and dies?
No diff between murder and manslaughter?
You want the same application of law between those two and now throw
in a case were it conviction is brought about by circumstantial
evidence, a sordid past, and a flaky eye-witness?
Sorry for the excess verbiage but I do not understand your above.
Your very notion of not wanting to execute one that may be innocent
has some kind of Christian odor to it,no? Just wondering. I mean, why
not execute one that may be innocent? Insure against those that
consider killing. Why value human life?
Again, thanks for the exchange.
Len
>> >What makes you believe that bin Laden will allow himself to be taken alive?
>> What makes you believe our government would want to take him alive?
>> Holding up his severed head would quell a lot of the nonsense for a
>> lot of people. Taking him alive would be just the opposite.
>Holding up his severed head would produce one hell of a martyr for his
>cause, whatever that is. Capturing him alive might well do the same but
>strikes me as probably marginally safer. Either way causes trouble.
Kind of like martyrs. As stated earlier, capturing him would give
thousands a goal. Our trial system would be up for torture while his
minions would throw themselves on his pyre of
"imperialistic-zion-justice" and all that rhetoric would gag a maggot.
The severed head has a poetic justice notion understood by all with a
personal involvement.
But then, again, you are right, trouble would surely follow. That's
life.
Len
?
>And what do you think would happen while he was on trial?
>AND when he was convicted? AND when he was executed?
>> > >>The only way to make sure bin Laden stays punished, is
deephootie
> >> How does the possibility of killing a guilty person affect your
> >> opinion?
>
> >Thats one of the reasons why I am against it. Eventhough there are no
> >documented cases of innocent people being put to death I believe that
> >there has been by the sheer fact that advacement in biology has
> >exonerated many people who have been convicted.
>
> You have escaped me. Your deepness, hootie, is beyond me.
> I ask one question and you answer to some other bell.
> BTW, some folks claim we have executed innocent people.
> I'll never know, but my question still stands.
You answered my question with a question. And yes I didn't read your
question as carefully as I should have so I can see the confusion.
If the person is truly guilty ok.
Next time please answer the question and then ask yours. BTW, what is
your answer to my question?
deephootie
> >> >> For or against the Death Penalty? Why? Or why not?
> >> >> How do the fairly recent posthumous actuitals come into play?
>
> >> >Against. Too prone to error, rushing to judgement, and too selective (as
> >> >the Supreme Court once ruled)
>
> >> >Killing people is wrong.
> >>
> >> And based on THAT moral principle the state shall show the sanctity of
> >> life by executing after the long and arduous process of seeking the
> >> truth via 12 agreements, after presenting an argument of facts and
> >> evidence, appeals of the process of the argument, and great solemnity
> >> in the execution itself.
> >> It is PROOF that killing people is a serious and somber issue and thus
> >> justifies the very proposition. It makes the innocent's life "sacred"
> >> to the state, which is there to protect and honor each individual and
> >> give meaning to their life. It is NOT done in the heat, or back alley,
> >> or whimsical nature, but rather in a precise and painfully deliberate
> >> manner. It works.
>
> >All good points. But we have seen the justice system fail innocent
> >people and there are many documented cases of this so in essence it
> >works somteimes.
>
> not guilty.
> death row awaiting punishment, the justice system is there to
> guarantee the system gave them as fair a break as possible.
> Furthermore the Supreme Courts notion that the jury system may be too
> quick to judge is simply a slight on the judges that try the case.
So you are comforatble with the exceution of inocent people as long as
they have gone through all the "fair a break[s]"?
John
Prove that EVEN ONE innocent person has ever been executed.
deephootie
Mitchell Holman
@newsfeed.avtel.net:
Didn't the release of Soviet records show that
Ethel Rosenberg was innocent?
And then there is the matter of the Salem executions,
unless you believe the prisoners were really witches.......
John
Nope.
> And then there is the matter of the Salem executions,
> unless you believe the prisoners were really witches....
Prove that even ONE innocent person has been executed in modern times.
There are multiple levels of review and it is just impossible.
Ashland Henderson
> And what do you think would happen while he was on trial?
> AND when he was convicted? AND when he was executed?
What I said. Trouble. There are no good solutions.
deephootie
I suppose you are talking about contemporary US history and I have
concedede that there are no documeneted cases of a innocent person
being executed. However, the fact that such a case cannot be pointed
to doesn't mean such a case doesn't exsist. By the fact sheer fact
that there are people who have been wrongfuly convicted and have been
sentenced to death row:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110
But yes there is no "Smoking Gun" but if you truly believe that this
can never happened you must also belive a lot of other plausiable
deniability stories.
Mitchell Holman
@newsfeed.avtel.net:
What sort of "proof" are you willing to accept?
You can't exactly have a retrial, and you are bound
to dismiss the recantation of eyewitnesses. So what
standard are you using for "proof"?
deephootie
http://archive.aclu.org/issues/death/23executed.html
So we have 23 people who have been executed.
The system is falliable the fact that there are multiple levels of
review proves that.
Len
I don't even see your question. The only question mark I see is the
question I posed above: How does the possibility of killing a guilty
person affect your opinion?
To answer the above, my question, I have no problem executing a guilty
person.
Sorry if I blew the whole scenario.
Len
scribbled:
Yes. We can do no other. I assume, a bad on my part, people of
character and integrity, along with intelligence, and the ability to
carry out the law, not what they perceive, feel, or sense. Given the
best of all fair trials, there is no other way.
We need to worry more when technology comes up with a "guaranteed" way
to "know the truth".
Len
>> they have gone through all the "fair a break[s]"?
>Prove that EVEN ONE innocent person has ever been executed.
Jesus of Nazareth.
Len
>>> they have gone through all the "fair a break[s]"?
>> Prove that EVEN ONE innocent person has ever been executed.
> Didn't the release of Soviet records show that
>Ethel Rosenberg was innocent?
The records proved just the opposite. The Rosenberg's were guilty as
charged.
> And then there is the matter of the Salem executions,
>unless you believe the prisoners were really witches.......
We don't do that anymore, for horse rustling or train robbery as well.
I do recall, as young man, that Caryl Chessman was executed for 12
rapes, no murders. We should bring back those laws, no?
Child molestation?
Len
>> >is no longer used is because if improperly administered teh death is
>> >long and drawn out. But if done properly, it is quick as the body hits
>> >the end of the rope teh neck snaps and death can be near
>> >instantaneous.
>> Practice, practice, practice.
>Are you volunteering?
Are there openings?
I recall when Nevada was getting ready to execute that fellow and
claimed to have problems finding executioners. They received over
10,000 applications for firing squad positions.
It would be just another job. I mean if I were one of the
participants, and not the recipient.
Mitchell Holman
4ax.com:
>>>> So you are comforatble with the exceution of inocent people as long
as
>>>> they have gone through all the "fair a break[s]"?
>
>>> Prove that EVEN ONE innocent person has ever been executed.
>
>> Didn't the release of Soviet records show that
>>Ethel Rosenberg was innocent?
>
> The records proved just the opposite. The Rosenberg's were guilty as
> charged.
Not according to the chief prosecution witness:
" The prosecution's case rested mainly on the testimony
of David Greenglass, Ethel Rosenberg's younger brother
and himself a convicted spy. Decades later in the late
2001, Greenglass admitted that he had committed perjury
and involved his sister Ethel, who had apparently been
innocent of all charges. Greenglass said he chose to
turn in his sister in order to protect his wife."
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethel_Rosenberg
Julius was guilty, but Ethel was thrown as a
"lever" to squeeze her husband to confessing. And
end, is, well, history.
>
>> And then there is the matter of the Salem executions,
>>unless you believe the prisoners were really witches.......
>
> We don't do that anymore, for horse rustling or train robbery as well.
> I do recall, as young man, that Caryl Chessman was executed for 12
> rapes, no murders. We should bring back those laws, no?
> Child molestation?
There is no end of "victims rights" groups who want
to use the death penalty to enforce their agenda. And
now we are adding such nebulous catagories as "drug kingpin".
Gads.
Mitchell Holman
"Evidence of innocence is irrelevant."
The appeals attorney for the state of Virgina, arguing
that Roger Coleman should be executed despite new evidence
showing his innocence. He was executed later the same year.