New evidenced released that Texas executed innocent man in death of 3 daughters

[Subyman]

If I was supporting it from a place of utility, I would do as the Obama administration does in the War of Terror and ensure they are killed before they ever get a chance to stand trial.

I'm not understanding the point of your post. You said you support the death penalty to get these people out of society so they no longer pose a danger. Housing them until death is cheaper than execution. No need to deflect my question onto a dig at Obama's foreign policy.

 

[DrDoug]

So called "pro life" conservatives, always on the look out for reasons to kill someone in "self-defense", execute someone, start a war somewhere for whatever reason to bomb some people who have done nothing to them.

They're not "pro life", they're "pro birth". Once that child is born though they don't give a shit about it. They don't give a shit about any life except their own and those of their immediate family, friends and others that they perceive as like themselves. Feelings of humanity are only extended to those they care about, everyone else can go fuck off. If you aren't in that group then it sucks to be you. If they decide that you need to die then you need to die.

It's that simple to them.

 

[Viper GTS]

First of all, no evidence would ever show him "innocent" since that's not a possible verdict in our system but not guilty is.

Secondly, I don't give a damn if anti death penalty folks get their fondest wish and can "prove" someone not guilty was executed, the American people and I would still support death penalty regardless.

Some of us are capable of recognizing that no matter how much some people may deserve to die for their crimes the human inevitability of error makes it impossible to support. Protecting the life of the innocent unfortunately requires us to give up seeking death for all guilty, and any sane person should be fine with making that tradeoff.

Viper GTS

 

[Subyman]

They're not "pro life", they're "pro birth". Once that child is born though they don't give a shit about it. They don't give a shit about any life except their own and those of their immediate family, friends and others that they perceive as like themselves. Feelings of humanity are only extended to those they care about, everyone else can go fuck off. If you aren't in that group then it sucks to be you. If they decide that you need to die then you need to die.

It's that simple to them.

If this was Rick Perry's relative, a pardon would have been issued day one.

 

[glenn1]

I'm not understanding the point of your post. You said you support the death penalty to get these people out of society so they no longer pose a danger. Housing them until death is cheaper than execution. No need to deflect my question onto a dig at Obama's foreign policy.

It's disingenuous to argue cost when often the cost driver is anti-death penalty groups defense in every case regardless of obvious guilt. And I don't insist on death penalty and agree that lifetime incarceration also protects others. Although it's in no way morally superior anymore than allowing a rabid dog to die of old age locked in a kennel forever. I'm simply giving a reasonable answer to those who argue that there is no moral way to support it. That is a bunch of crap and motivated reasoning in action.

 

[glenn1]

Some of us are capable of recognizing that no matter how much some people may deserve to die for their crimes the human inevitability of error makes it impossible to support. Protecting the life of the innocent unfortunately requires us to give up seeking death for all guilty, and any sane person should be fine with making that tradeoff.

Viper GTS

If zero errors is your moral polestar then it's equally immoral for police to kill while a crime is being committed to save others.

 

[Subyman]

It's disingenuous to argue cost when often the cost driver is anti-death penalty groups defense in every case regardless of obvious guilt. And I don't insist on death penalty and agree that lifetime incarceration also protects others. Although it's in no way morally superior anymore than allowing a rabid dog to die of old age locked in a kennel forever. I'm simply giving a reasonable answer to those who argue that there is no moral way to support it. That is a bunch of crap and motivated reasoning in action.

So you are for less oversight in the execution process to get costs down to simply housing them for life?

 

[fskimospy]

So you are for less oversight in the execution process to get costs down to simply housing them for life?

I'm going to give Glenn about 5 more posts until he devolves into a rage meltdown when confronted with the contradictions in his position.

 

[glenn1]

So you are for less oversight in the execution process to get costs down to simply housing them for life?

If you're housing them for life then you're still in support of the death penalty, only you are acting like a coward because you want Father Time and the Grim Reaper to do the job for you rather than the state. Because somehow you can allow yourself plausible deniability then I suppose.

 

[glenn1]

So you are for less oversight in the execution process to get costs down to simply housing them for life?

Read my posts again. I am ambivalent about death penalty vs. life in prison. That others who oppose the death penalty on moral grounds are using cost as a reason against it is the height of hypocrisy as they wouldn't simply reverse their position if life in prison suddenly cost more. They will use any argument regardless of how disingenuous to support their pre-determined conclusion. They can't allow themselves to let simply accept that people who don't feel as they do have an actual moral argument.

 

[Subyman]

If you're housing them for life then you're still in support of the death penalty, only you are acting like a coward because you want Father Time and the Grim Reaper to do the job for you rather than the state. Because somehow you can allow yourself plausible deniability then I suppose.

That is completely not true. They have a life, they can walk, talk, read books, and enjoy what little prison has to offer. We are all waiting for death, they must wait in a place that they can not harm others. Whether they are in prison or on the streets, Father Time will do his job.

Read my posts again. I am ambivalent about death penalty vs. life in prison. That others who oppose the death penalty on moral grounds are using cost as a reason against it is the height of hypocrisy as they wouldn't simply reverse their position if life in prison suddenly cost more. They will use any argument regardless of how disingenuous to support their pre-determined conclusion. They can't allow themselves to let simply accept that people who don't feel as they do have an actual moral argument.

You said the only reason you support the death penalty is because "rabid dogs" should not participate in or harm society. Life in prison is an easy way to do this, yet you support the death penalty instead. There is no reason to support the death penalty other than vengeance. On both fronts, economically and morally, life in prison is far more acceptable than the death penalty. So those that have no moral qualms and are simply looking at the numbers should support life in prison if they are being objective. Those that do not support the death penalty on moral grounds are well within reasoning.

So I ask you again, why do you support the death penalty? You said its not for cost reasons, so utility goes out the window. You said its so these people won't harm others again, prison does that. So what is it other than vengeance? If it is vengeance and anger, just say it. Those are human emotions.

 

[glenn1]

That is completely not true. They have a life, they can walk, talk, read books, and enjoy what little prison has to offer. We are all waiting for death, they must wait in a place that they can not harm others. Whether they are in prison or on the streets, Father Time will do his job.



You said the only reason you support the death penalty is because "rabid dogs" should not participate in or harm society. Life in prison is an easy way to do this, yet you support the death penalty instead. There is no reason to support the death penalty other than vengeance. On both fronts, economically and morally, life in prison is far more acceptable than the death penalty. So those that have no moral qualms and are simply looking at the numbers should support life in prison if they are being objective. Those that do not support the death penalty on moral grounds are well within reasoning.

So I ask you again, why do you support the death penalty? You said its not for cost reasons, so utility goes out the window. You said its so these people won't harm others again, prison does that. So what is it other than vengeance? If it is vengeance and anger, just say it. Those are human emotions.

Was it just vengeance and anger when we executed those who committed war crimes after World War 2? Would we have been showing superior moral character by bringing Osama bin Laden alive in for trial and allowing him to "have a life, they can walk, talk, read books, and enjoy what little prison has to offer"?

"Mr. War Criminal who committed genocide, what you did was so heinous that we'll ensure you enjoy a nice comfortable life for the next 40 years."

 

[Subyman]

Was it just vengeance and anger when we executed those who committed war crimes after World War 2? Would we have been showing superior moral character by bringing Osama bin Laden alive in for trial and allowing him to "have a life, they can walk, talk, read books, and enjoy what little prison has to offer"?

"Mr. War Criminal who committed genocide, what you did was so heinous that we'll ensure you enjoy a nice comfortable life for the next 40 years."

Sadly, you dodged the question. I will answer yours. Yes, those were for vengeance.

 

[glenn1]

Sadly, you dodged the question. I will answer yours. Yes, those were for vengeance.

Well then fine, mark me down for vengeance then. I really don't give a shit what you think of me if you think it's morally better than a genocidal dictator is spared the death penalty.

 

[Subyman]

Well then fine, mark me down for vengeance then. I really don't give a shit what you think of me if you think it's morally better than a genocidal dictator is spared the death penalty.

It is good to know exactly why you believe in certain policies because it lets you examine your beliefs and possibly change your beliefs over time as your views change. I'm not passing judgement on you, I was really trying to get to the kernel of your belief. I am interested in why people believe in the death penalty. People I talk to always end up saying its the desire for eye for an eye after everything else is knocked away.

 

[fskimospy]

Well then fine, mark me down for vengeance then. I really don't give a shit what you think of me if you think it's morally better than a genocidal dictator is spared the death penalty.

It's interesting how quickly you went from 'it's just greater utility' to 'fine, it's vengeance'.

 

[glenn1]

It is good to know exactly why you believe in certain policies because it lets you examine your beliefs and possibly change your beliefs over time as your views change. I'm not passing judgement on you, I was really trying to get to the kernel of your belief. I am interested in why people believe in the death penalty. People I talk to always end up saying its the desire for eye for an eye after everything else is knocked away.

Because I think you have a huge moral blind spot that you would allow a Hitler to put millions in gas ovens, but turn around and ensure if caught he'd suffer nothing worse than being in a cell where armies of lawyers ensured the air conditioning was never allowed to go over 75 degrees.

 

[Subyman]

Because I think you have a huge moral blind spot that you would allow a Hitler to put millions in gas ovens, but turn around and ensure if caught he'd suffer nothing worse than being in a cell where armies of lawyers ensured the air conditioning was never allowed to go over 75 degrees.

No need to attack me. If you noticed, I never gave my opinion on the death penalty 😉

FWIW, Hitler killed himself.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Some of us are capable of recognizing that no matter how much some people may deserve to die for their crimes the human inevitability of error makes it impossible to support. Protecting the life of the innocent unfortunately requires us to give up seeking death for all guilty, and any sane person should be fine with making that tradeoff.

Viper GTS

I disagree with this idea. I get that it's a famous quote where it's worth it that guilty people get away rather than one innocent man is killed, but almost every action we perform in this world has a chance for mistake.

There's no such thing as ZERO chance for error. I work on medical devices, and the best we can do is classify everything by risk, and rationalize that low risk issues do not need as rigorous controls as high risk failures.

If you want to avoid any chance at error, its like using the anti-vaccination argument.

 

[dawp]

What if they prove that ten innocent people were executed? Fifty? A hundred? How many would it take until you reconsider?

Or is this just another one of those spite based policies you love so much?

I think the only way people like Glen will change their minds is if they are in the death chamber with an IV in their arm about to be injected for something they did not do.

 

[Vic]

I believe in the death penalty but executing someone on hearsay should not be enough to pass the test. There needs to be lots of verifiable physical evidence etc..

Someone should not be executed just because some convict made up some story.

They do this kind of thing all the time. A 'jailhouse confession' was the only evidence presented at trial for a substantial amount of the prison population.

 

[Subyman]

I disagree with this idea. I get that it's a famous quote where it's worth it that guilty people get away rather than one innocent man is killed, but almost every action we perform in this world has a chance for mistake.

There's no such thing as ZERO chance for error. I work on medical devices, and the best we can do is classify everything by risk, and rationalize that low risk issues do not need as rigorous controls as high risk failures.

If you want to avoid any chance at error, its like using the anti-vaccination argument.

The argument is that there is an alternative. Its not a "put to death" or "release to streets." This isn't an all or nothing proposition for people that are guilty. The death penalty is an extension of the penal system.

Vaccine or no vaccine doesn't have a middle ground.

 

[Vic]

It's neither of those. Some people demonstrate themselves to be basically feral with no regards for others, will always be a danger to others, and no remorse or grief about the damage they have done and would do to their next victims given the opportunity. Some people are not redeemable and we should kill them as we would a rabid animal; humanely, without malice, and swiftly. The world is most certainly not a better place with terrorists, psychopaths, or evil men being allowed to stay alive because we're trying to somehow demonstrate we are better people than they are as we already are.

And where is your regard for the innocent man who was executed for the deaths of his daughters?

 

[K1052]

So basically we can't do away with the death penalty for US citizens accused of criminal acts because Hitler. That makes lots of sense.

 

[BoberFett]

First of all, no evidence would ever show him "innocent" since that's not a possible verdict in our system but not guilty is.

Secondly, I don't give a damn if anti death penalty folks get their fondest wish and can "prove" someone not guilty was executed, the American people and I would still support death penalty regardless.

I'm an American and I don't support the death penalty because of bullshit like this. For one's own government to kill them for no reason? That's FUBAR.