An Evil Man was Executed Today

[Anarchist420]

even if you havent been accused of killing someone, you could be murdered by agents of the State if you defend yourself when it comes to tax you (i.e., steal your property).

so long as you have the State, innocents will get murdered by it.

i personally favor making murderers part of the victim's estate. barring that, they should just be made outlaws so that the prison system can be done away with.

 

[zinfamous]

i personally favor making murderers part of the victim's estate. barring that, they should just be made outlaws so that the prison system can be done away with.

Can someone explain to me what this is supposed to mean?

 

[dawp]

Probably not as evil as this guy

I think H H Holmes would give him a run for the money

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._H._Holmes

 

[alkemyst]

I thought nobody on ATOT trusted the government, but for killing people they're ok?

They are fucked up. There is another thread about how puritan the US is being posted in by some of our most tightly wound members.

They pick their opinions on the soup du jour.

 

[SolMiester]

Yeah, but they played with him yesterday by first telling him his execution was stayed then later saying ... just kidding, you're going to die tonight! :twisted:


Brian

LOL, good job!

 

[WelshBloke]

They are fucked up. There is another thread about how puritan the US is being posted in by some of our most tightly wound members.

They pick their opinions on the soup du jour.

What?

 

[Agent11]

Soup of the day.

 

[John Connor]

It's too bad he had such a fucked up life as a child. And he should have been admitted to a mental hospital early on and handed medicine.

 

[TallBill]

Wow I just lost an hour of time. Damn you internet.

 

[Agent11]

Companies are running from death penalty use of their products. Soon it will be defacto restricted because it is too hard to get the equipment to execute people.

That is not an environment that leads me to believe the winds will change. It is a PR liability.

A noose is a perfectly acceptable method, rope is in plentiful supply as well, as are bullets, although lethal injection should not require too much effort to obtain the required supplies also. . . It's an IV drip and a gurney ffs. I think inmates should be allowed to choose their preferred method and the state being able to acquire supplies should not impede their choice.

People who oppose the death penalty throw up smoke screens and obstruct constantly. In my opinion their arguments are nebulous at best. Are you quite content in the cost to tax payers your misplaced moral indignation causes? Because that is the only good argument against the death penalty; the justice system's current state, caused by your obstructions and bleetings.

An argument could be made in the past about too many innocents being convicted on circumstantial evidence and sentenced to death, however that is not what you are talking about. You do not entertain thoughts on how things could be reformed to fix such problems, but object all together. With advances in technology the ability to ascertain guilt is much better than at any other point in history, coupled with standards of evidence that prosecutors should be forced to adhere to the problem of innocents on death row could be considered 'fixed'.

 

[poofyhairguy]

although lethal injection should not require too much effort to obtain the required supplies also.

They do have trouble because of the PR liability of the death penalty for the drug companies. That was my point- society is moving in a direction where the death penalty is less acceptable, not more.

Are you quite content in the cost to tax payers your misplaced moral indignation causes? Because that is the only good argument against the death penalty; the justice system's current state, caused by your obstructions and bleetings.

I didn't create the standard, the Supreme Court did. And it was shaped by many cases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions_on_capital_punishment

So this "current state" has been arrived at by America's top legal minds working on it for generations. I think it is correct to debate the issue within this framework and not what some bloodhungry American thinks "it should be like."

You do not entertain thoughts on how things could be reformed to fix such problems, but object all together. With advances in technology the ability to ascertain guilt is much better than at any other point in history, coupled with standards of evidence that prosecutors should be forced to adhere to the problem of innocents on death row could be considered 'fixed'.

The essential problem is that human beings are flawed beings who aren't perfect and make mistakes. That means any system we create will not be perfect, including our legal system.

The second that flawed system executes someone, it does an act that cannot be undone if later evidence or future technology points out the flaw. Just because our crime fighting techniques are "much better than at any other point in history" doesn't mean they aren't primitive compared to what we will have 50 years from now.

If we had some technology that could extract memories from human brains, and was foolproof to the level where it could be submitted at evidence (aka could tell the difference between a fantasy and what actually happened), then MAYBE we could talk about a system that might not punish innocents. But that is Sci-Fi in our current age, and what we have available to us today isn't enough to condemn people to die.

 

[Anarchist420]

Can someone explain to me what this is supposed to mean?

murderers should become property of the victim's estate.

or, if that's not possible then murderers should be designated as someone anyone may legally kill. dick cheney, for example, should not have any legal protection whatsoever nor should any still alive ex-president.