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

[glenn1]

Still bullshit. There are things they can be trusted with because even if they fuck them up it's not a big deal. Someone losing their life is kind of a big deal.

Yeah, like taking over healthcare right? Because there's no way that could end badly either. So I'm sure you'll oppose Obamacare on the same grounds. Or any government program that puts our lives or liberties at risk like capital punishment.

Oh wait, who am I kidding. Of course you don't.

 

[glenn1]

Even if we set aside the morality of execution it doesn't make sense from a practical pov unless you're in favor of high funding for purely authoritarian aspects of govt. The price of execution in the modern world is extremely high, several $M each. It goes to the legal system & serves to clog it up. Right, wrong or indifferent, death penalty opponents will oppose any execution on any grounds possible for their own reasons. That's true whether they believe the convicted to be guilty or innocent. They'll work hard at it, a lot harder than they would for the release of the same prisoner sentenced to natural life in prison. It's a helluva lot cheaper just to keep such prisoners in high security facilities until they die, even if they live to a ripe old age. They can be segregated from the general prison population as administrators see fit. It effectively protects society from individuals likely to repeat & from systemic authoritarian greed as well. It should be enough vengeance for anybody.

Yeah, that sounds great. Abortion should be the same way. Since right, wrong, or indifferent its opponents will oppose it on any grounds possible for their own reasons. It'll be a helluva lot cheaper for women just to carry all pregnancies to term. Why allow abortion when adoption is a perfectly valid alternative.

 

[fskimospy]

The Affordable Care Act is now being compared to the Tuskegee Experiments?

What the serious fuck.

 

[dank69]

Yeah, like taking over healthcare right? Because there's no way that could end badly either. So I'm sure you'll oppose Obamacare on the same grounds. Or any government program that puts our lives or liberties at risk like capital punishment.

Oh wait, who am I kidding. Of course you don't.

Taking over healthcare? Jesus you are fucked up. Please explain how the ACA equals "taking over healthcare." Do you just accept every RNC talking point as gospel without actually thinking about it for 10 seconds first? You sound like a fucking lunatic.

 

[dank69]

So in other words, the justice system human enterprise represents an acceptable risk only up to the point where the DP is involved but nowhere else. Good to know that you think that someone convicted of a non-capital crime who's guilt is "nearly never not in doubt" can safely have any other penalty imposed on them. But that's OK, in the remote chance that someone gives enough of a crap about someone not on death row to try to get them exonerated, we'll just have the state stroke them a big check. Surely a couple hundred K will make up for that decade or two in jail and not getting to see their kids grow up. Unless you died first, in which case I guess you're just SOL anyway.

Seeing the bolded phrase I knew I was going to see a typical straw man. No the DP is not the only point where government can't be trusted, idiot. Try harder. I see you're also back to life in prison is awful instead of life in prison is a treat.

 

[brycejones]

More insane blathering.

Yep, confirmed you have to be just trolling at this point.

 

[glenn1]

Taking over healthcare? Jesus you are fucked up. Please explain how the ACA equals "taking over healthcare." Do you just accept every RNC talking point as gospel without actually thinking about it for 10 seconds first? You sound like a fucking lunatic.

Just trying to measure out the limits of your government trust allowance, trying to see if anything else besides capital punishment falls into the exclusion zone. Because you seem to be very trusting of government in the 100s if not 1000s of ways they can act to hurt, kill, or take away your liberties . It's rather ironic that the government activity with the most safeguards by far of anything government does is the one you seem most reluctant to trust them with.

 

[dank69]

Yeah, that sounds great. Abortion should be the same way. Since right, wrong, or indifferent its opponents will oppose it on any grounds possible for their own reasons. It'll be a helluva lot cheaper for women just to carry all pregnancies to term. Why allow abortion when adoption is a perfectly valid alternative.

Flailing for just about anything now, huh? Please continue. Tell us how expensive abortion is because of religious nutters.

 

[dank69]

Just trying to measure out the limits of your government trust allowance, trying to see if anything else besides capital punishment falls into the exclusion zone. Because you seem to be very trusting of government in the 100s if not 1000s of ways they can act to hurt, kill, or take away your liberties . It's rather ironic that the government activity with the most safeguards by far of anything government does is the one you seem most reluctant to trust them with.

No no no, you said the ACA was a "takeover of healthcare" please explain how you reached that conclusion. Was it your own thought process or did the RNC tell you to think that? If it was your own thought process, please summarize it for us.

 

[glenn1]

No no no, you said the ACA was a "takeover of healthcare" please explain how you reached that conclusion. Was it your own thought process or did the RNC tell you to think that? If it was your own thought process, please summarize it for us.

Thread derail much? I'll withdraw the statement if you answer mine. Why is the government function with the most possible safeguards not to be trusted whereas other government functions with similar risk profiles are A-OK?

 

[dank69]

Thread derail much? I'll withdraw the statement if you answer mine. Why is the government function with the most possible safeguards not to be trusted whereas other government functions with similar risk profiles are A-OK?

The OP shows that the safeguards aren't enough in the case of the DP. Please define these similar risk profiles. As for derailment, you are the one that brought that subject up, now it seems you are running from it. I can't imagine why.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

So in other words, the justice system human enterprise represents an acceptable risk only up to the point where the DP is involved but nowhere else. Good to know that you think that someone convicted of a non-capital crime who's guilt is "nearly never not in doubt" can safely have any other penalty imposed on them. But that's OK, in the remote chance that someone gives enough of a crap about someone not on death row to try to get them exonerated, we'll just have the state stroke them a big check. Surely a couple hundred K will make up for that decade or two in jail and not getting to see their kids grow up. Unless you died first, in which case I guess you're just SOL anyway.

What alternative are you proposing, then? That we abandon the entire justice system because it's intrinsically imperfect? Obviously the difference between the death penalty and other sentences is that where it is later shown that the system got it wrong, a non-death sentence allows the innocent prison to be freed. Cameron Willingham didn't have that luxury. The fact that you can't concede that the death penalty is qualitatively different from other sentences in terms of its permanency is just mind-boggling to me. It seems completely obvious to everyone but you.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Yeah, like taking over healthcare right? Because there's no way that could end badly either. So I'm sure you'll oppose Obamacare on the same grounds. Or any government program that puts our lives or liberties at risk like capital punishment.

Oh wait, who am I kidding. Of course you don't.

So you support the one "government program" that involves directly killing civilians, despite arguing (in a nakedly disingenuous way, no less) that government sometimes gets things wrong? This is like a debate class conducted in the Bizarro World.

 

[glenn1]

The OP shows that the safeguards aren't enough in the case of the DP. Please define these similar risk profiles. As for derailment, you are the one that brought that subject up, now it seems you are running from it. I can't imagine why.

Great, we'll just skip the whole death penalty sentencing stuff then and skip straight to the good stuff. I'm sure Anwar Al-Awlaki won't mind. And you're right, MLK would likely agree or the good folks of Ruby Ridge for that matter.

 

[dank69]

Great, we'll just skip the whole death penalty sentencing stuff then and skip straight to the good stuff. I'm sure Anwar Al-Awlaki won't mind. And you're right, MLK would likely agree or the good folks of Ruby Ridge for that matter.

Hey, guess what? I think the government has too much power in those types of situations as well. Isn't this fun? I'm not shedding any tears for Anwar, though.

 

[dank69]

So you support the one "government program" that involves directly killing civilians, despite arguing (in a nakedly disingenuous way, no less) that government sometimes gets things wrong? This is like a debate class conducted in the Bizarro World.

He is so emotionally invested at this point he feels he has to get something in return for conceding. Clearly he is looking for the ability to dismiss any argument for any government power. 🙄

 

[Subyman]

Glenn1 would rather change the entire justice system in America instead of giving up his grasp on seeking death. Vengeance is a powerful motivator for some people. Again, the ONLY "benefit" glenn1 has shown for the death penalty over a life sentence is that "feel good" moment of seeing someone die. Glenn1 is completely coming from a position of wanting that emotional feeling. Nothing else. Sad really.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Great, we'll just skip the whole death penalty sentencing stuff then and skip straight to the good stuff. I'm sure Anwar Al-Awlaki won't mind. And you're right, MLK would likely agree or the good folks of Ruby Ridge for that matter.

It's hilarious that you are buying into that bogus verdict about the government being responsible for MLK's assassination. That case was nothing more than a PR exercise and the government never presented any evidence in its own defense (nor could it, because it was not named as a party - the plaintiffs and defendant, Lloyd Lowers all agreed to the "verdict" that he was guilty of hiring a hit man to kill MLK at the direction of a produce dealer with some unidentified ties to the Mafia and the government, and that the King family was entitled to $100 in damages).

In any case, if you believe the government is capable of so much deliberate wrongdoing, why on Earth would you want to give it the power to execute thousands of people a year?

 

[waggy]

lol

sometimes it's best to stop arguing. Some in this thread have been smacked down so hard it's kinda painful to read. But hell keep it up. im entertained.

 

[glenn1]

It's hilarious that you are buying into that bogus verdict about the government being responsible for MLK's assassination. That case was nothing more than a PR exercise and the government never presented any evidence in its own defense (nor could it, because it was not named as a party). In any case, if you believe the government is capable of so much deliberate wrongdoing, why on Earth would you want to give it the power to execute thousands of people a year?

Asked and answered in post 186 and elsewhere.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's hilarious that you are buying into that bogus verdict about the government being responsible for MLK's assassination. That case was nothing more than a PR exercise and the government never presented any evidence in its own defense (nor could it, because it was not named as a party). In any case, if you believe the government is capable of so much deliberate wrongdoing, why on Earth would you want to give it the power to execute thousands of people a year?

Righties have the ability to maintain contradictory views as compatible through the process of compartmentalization & denial. They're easily manipulated at an emotional level, then convince themselves that they reasoned their way into such positions when nothing of the sort occurred. First they believe, then they justify.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Asked and answered in post 186 and elsewhere.

But how is the idea that "the government" assassinated MLK (which is almost certainly not true) persuasive of the notion that it should be afforded more liberty to kill civilians with the death penalty?

I presume you are just trolling, but if you're not I seriously have to question your mental and emotional well-being.

 

[glenn1]

Righties have the ability to maintain contradictory views as compatible through the process of compartmentalization & denial. They're easily manipulated at an emotional level, then convince themselves that they reasoned their way into such positions when nothing of the sort occurred. First they believe, then they justify.

Yeah, that never happens on the other side. I'm sure one of you who opposes the DP due to "fallibility" could watch a murder being committed and then argue that guilt couldn't be empirically established by an imperfect, corrupt government. Maybe a wormhole will open up and create an alternative timeline where the murderer wasn't guilty, therefore we have to give him life in prison in case he can be later exonerated.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I can count the sane conservatives on this forum on zero hands.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yeah, that never happens on the other side. I'm sure one of you who opposes the DP due to "fallibility" could watch a murder being committed and then argue that guilt couldn't be empirically established by an imperfect, corrupt government. Maybe a wormhole will open up and create an alternative timeline where the murderer wasn't guilty, therefore we have to give him life in prison in case he can be later exonerated.