• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
BoberFett said:
Really? Because that's exactly my position, but according to you I'm too "sensitive". Because if there's one thing that everyone here who reads my posts knows, it's that I'm too sensitive. 🙄

So if you can understand the difference between being OK with death for a criminal, but not trusting the government to mete out that punishment properly
why are you so gung ho to give nanny government the ultimate nanny power?
Click to expand...
I'm wondering the same thing. I think support for DP is party due to not wanting to look soft on crime, partly to differentiate oneself from liberals, and partly just an expedient. I can't believe it's the result of careful reflection.

I honestly have no patience for criminals, if justice could be administered perfectly I would probably support the death penalty for quite a few crimes. I have no moral problem with that. Some people don't distinguish themselves from wild animals in any way, and should be put down. In fact, the worst of us give wild animals a bad name. But it's increasingly clear that the system is just too fallible to be trusted. It's damnable, really, that we can't seem to do a better job. But there it is.
 
Last edited:
BoberFett said:
Really? Because that's exactly my position, but according to you I'm too "sensitive". Because if there's one thing that everyone here who reads my posts knows, it's that I'm too sensitive. 🙄

So if you can understand the difference between being OK with death for a criminal, but not trusting the government to mete out that punishment properly
why are you so gung ho to give nanny government the ultimate nanny power?
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

you just blew his mind.


(maybe)
 
BoberFett said:
Really? Because that's exactly my position, but according to you I'm too "sensitive". Because if there's one thing that everyone here who reads my posts knows, it's that I'm too sensitive. 🙄

So if you can understand the difference between being OK with death for a criminal, but not trusting the government to mete out that punishment properly
why are you so gung ho to give nanny government the ultimate nanny power?
Click to expand...

Because the first is a completely intractable moral position. The second is an operational concern that could be mitigated with proper controls.
 
crashtech said:
I am a former supporter of the death penalty. While I still feel there exist many criminals who should be put to death for the good of society, it's become clear that our system of justice is too flawed to be entrusted with carrying out the ultimate penalty.
Click to expand...

If reversibility is your prime concern, then we can switch in medically induced coma until death, or lifetime in a sensory deprivation tank.
 
Mursilis said:
🙄 What a stupid troll post in an otherwise useful thread.

The Willingham case is just the latest example of the imperfections (still!) of our justice system, a justice system which simply can't be trusted with the death penalty. I'm currently reading "Devil in the Grove", and "justice" in the South is still a much abused term.
Click to expand...

It's not a troll post, it's the fucking truth. There is no such thing as "pro-life" on the right, it's nothing more than a cheap slogan that makes people feel like they are something that they clearly are not.
 
glenn1 said:
Yes, we cackle in glee everytime a mass murderer is executed.

128774370214267721.jpg
Click to expand...

How about a railroaded minority? Actually, that is probably the real reason the DP support remains so high among you people.
 
glenn1 said:
Sorry, I was too busy enjoying the irony of the same people who support "hate crimes" and other Orwellian thoughtcrime, being too "civilized" to think any possible atrocity is only morally answerable by ensuring the perpetrator's every need was looked after for the rest of their life. Good to know that people can fulfill the top box in Maslowe's Hierarchy of needs by indulging their Actualization needs to kill, rape, and torture people then have every lower need taken care of by taxpayers.
Click to expand...

The point that you consistently refuse to acknowledge is that it's not about the guilty, it's about the innocent.
 
I find it sad that glenn supports wasting tax payer money to get his sadistic jollies off a few times a year.
 
Last edited:
Brovane said:
What is the point of the death penalty?

1-Giving victims a sense of justice?
2-Protecting society?
3-Deterrence to others?

Items 2 and 3 have already been proven false. So that leaves us with item #1. The implementation of the Death Penalty in itself causes further violence. When the criminal is kept alive and confinement they have a chance of redemption and seeking forgiveness for their sins. The Death Penalty goes against Jesus's message of love and redemption.
Click to expand...

The number 1 reason for a penalty to any crime is because it is just. A punishment is an end itself, and we shouldn't treat it as a means.

Christ's message of love and redemption doesn't mean we can't prescribe death as a just punishment for a horrific murder.
 
Atreus21 said:
The number 1 reason for a penalty to any crime is because it is just. A punishment is an end itself, and we shouldn't treat it as a means.

Christ's message of love and redemption doesn't mean we can't prescribe death as a just punishment for a horrific murder.
Click to expand...

Vengeance or revenge is entirely an emotional act. Justice is a rational act. Vengeance and revenge are born from anger and hate, something that the teachings of Christ certainly do not wish to foster.
 
crashtech said:
Romans 12:17-19, for those so inclined.
Click to expand...

So you think that Christian principles should be used to determine our laws now?

Bad choice if so, since Christ himself didn't even object to himself being executed. You'd figure if he opposed the death penalty, hey he might have just said something to that effect as he was receiving that sentence from Pontius Pilate and it was carried out.

Or you can check Acts 25:11, Revelations 13:10, or hell the entire fucking Old Testament for that matter.
 
glenn1 said:
So you think that Christian principles should be used to determine our laws now?

Bad choice if so, since Christ himself didn't even object to himself being executed. You'd figure if he opposed the death penalty, hey he might have just said something to that effect as he was receiving that sentence from Pontius Pilate and it was carried out.

Or you can check Acts 25:11, Revelations 13:10, or hell the entire fucking Old Testament for that matter.
Click to expand...

Amazing. You berate him for using Christian values and then you quote some scripture (Old Testament in fact, lol) to back up your point of view. Amazing you are still even visiting this thread after being owned so many times.
 
Subyman said:
Amazing. You berate him for using Christian values and then you quote some scripture (Old Testament in fact, lol) to back up your point of view. Amazing you are still even visiting this thread after being owned so many times.
Click to expand...

You might want to brush up on your religious studies if you think Acts and Revelations are old testament. And LOL on saying I was "owned" in a moral discussion. That's like a pro-lifer saying they owned someone whose moral certainty was less than theirs about how it's always wrong to kill an "unborn baby."
 
glenn1 said:
You might want to brush up on your religious studies if you think Acts and Revelations are old testament. And LOL on saying I was "owned" in a moral discussion. That's like a pro-lifer saying they owned someone whose moral certainty was less than theirs about how it's always wrong to kill an "unborn baby."
Click to expand...

Not about your moral arguments at all. You've been shut down numerous times in this thread and just pivot to the next crazy argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top