Admin
Administrator 
Posts: 377
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2013 9:51:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 2, 2013 10:31:32 GMT
Texas remains a throwback to the Dark Ages when it comes to the death penalty and is known for convicting and sentencing more innocent people to death than any other State. Statistically we know that Texas "murders" innocent people because of the number of cases where individuals were actually able to prove their innocence beyond any doubt while sitting on death row in Texas. Of course for most innocent people that are convicted it's impossible for them to prove their innocence because it requires indisputable evidence, typically DNA evidence, to overturn a conviction. In most cases that evidence doesn't exist so the innocent person sentences to death is ultimately "murdered" by the State of Texas.
So far 18 States have abolished the death penalty in the United States and more will follow. Capital punishment is not about justice, it's about revenge, and Texans are a blood-thirsty people that seek revenge as opposed to justice. There is no justice in the premeditated taking of the life of a person held captive that presents no threat to society. It takes a warped person to believe that murdering a person rendered helpless is in anyway justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by dangermouse on Aug 2, 2013 11:57:26 GMT
Michael Portillo a Conservative ex MP from the Thatcher era did a show about the death penalty, investigating various methods of execution around the world, which uncovered a foolproof painfree method. Nitrogen gas. He's philosophically against the death penalty, but suggsted pragmatically that if you have to do it, this is the most humane method. I don't know if this Blecker guy's a Texan..
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 2, 2013 12:06:01 GMT
If as a person I don't have the Right to Kill a Person except in self-defense where they represent an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death then how can I delegate the "power" to government to kill a person that doesn't represent an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death?
The "People" cannot delegate a power to government that the People don't possess and no person has a Right to Kill another Person except in self-defense based upon an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death.
There is an indisputable fact and that is when a government has the power to kill people that are incapacitated and incapable of causing any harm then it will murder innocent people.
Those that support Capital Punishment support the murder of innocent People by the government because that always happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 2, 2013 12:08:43 GMT
Michael Portillo a Conservative ex MP from the Thatcher era did a show about the death penalty, investigating various methods of execution around the world, which uncovered a foolproof painfree method. There is no "foolproof" method of not murdering innocent people based upon Capital Punishment. We could make it painless but that only means that innocent people will be murdered painlessly. |
|
|
|
Post by smartmouthwoman on Aug 2, 2013 15:03:03 GMT
Let me guess... the same people who oppose Texas' death penalty, support abortion.
Save the guilty and murder the innocents... the cry of the left.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 2, 2013 19:03:22 GMT
Let me guess... the same people who oppose Texas' death penalty, support abortion. Save the guilty and murder the innocents... the cry of the left. Murder is the violation of the "Right to Life of the Person" and the only "Person" affected by an abortion is the woman. In the history of modern civilization and under the US Constitution the "preborn" have never been considered to be persons. |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 5, 2013 20:36:04 GMT
If as a person I don't have the Right to Kill a Person except in self-defense where they represent an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death then how can I delegate the "power" to government to kill a person that doesn't represent an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death?The "People" cannot delegate a power to government that the People don't possess and no person has a Right to Kill another Person except in self-defense based upon an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. There is an indisputable fact and that is when a government has the power to kill people that are incapacitated and incapable of causing any harm then it will murder innocent people.
Those that support Capital Punishment support the murder of innocent People by the government because that always happens.
Geez. That really doesn't match up with liberal views that it's somehow OKAY to kill an innocent unborn child at 22 weeks. Those that support this support the murder of innocent babies Preview |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 5, 2013 20:40:59 GMT
Let me guess... the same people who oppose Texas' death penalty, support abortion. Save the guilty and murder the innocents... the cry of the left. Murder is the violation of the "Right to Life of the Person" and the only "Person" affected by an abortion is the woman. In the history of modern civilization and under the US Constitution the "preborn" have never been considered to be persons.
Good Lord. That reasoning is sickening. Truly.
Besides, what you claim is not true. There have been many states that when a pregnant woman is murdered.....the murder of BOTH the woman and the baby have been prosecuted.
In fact, it's happening right now in the very famous Aerial Castro case....where's he's just been charged with multiple murders of unborn babies of his hostages.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 6, 2013 7:59:52 GMT
Murder is the violation of the "Right to Life of the Person" and the only "Person" affected by an abortion is the woman. In the history of modern civilization and under the US Constitution the "preborn" have never been considered to be persons.
Good Lord. That reasoning is sickening. Truly.
Besides, what you claim is not true. There have been many states that when a pregnant woman is murdered.....the murder of BOTH the woman and the baby have been prosecuted.
In fact, it's happening right now in the very famous Aerial Castro case....where's he's just been charged with multiple murders of unborn babies of his hostages.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 6, 2013 14:18:51 GMT
She did not get murdered. Her unborn baby did. That is the ONLY "murder" that took place.
|
|
|
|
Post by 12th on Aug 6, 2013 21:02:36 GMT
Michael Portillo a Conservative ex MP from the Thatcher era did a show about the death penalty, investigating various methods of execution around the world, which uncovered a foolproof painfree method. Nitrogen gas. He's philosophically against the death penalty, but suggsted pragmatically that if you have to do it, this is the most humane method. I don't know if this Blecker guy's a Texan.. I wonder if he investigated the guillotine. I have always imagined that the blade, coming down, causes no more than a slight tickling sensation on the back of the neck. It is only a guess, of course. I hope none of you ever finds out for certain. |
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Aug 6, 2013 23:59:35 GMT
The guillotine was designed to be a humane and efficient method of delivering a rapid death without danger of slow suffocation or whatever, and it should be relatively 'painless'. It a bit....ummm......messy, though!
There is one argument that wins over any argument in favour of the death penalty every time for me - what if the police and courts get it wrong? They have been known to do that from time to time, and you can't really release someone who has been wrongly killed. A posthumous pardon is comforting for families, of course, but it's really not of much practical use to the dead person. It's one instance where I think it is just always better to err on the side of caution and allow them to stay alive, just in case. The risk of the death of one innocent person is not justified for me by either the desire for 'revenge' against the guilty, or the need to cut the costs of maintaining the prison population.
|
|
|
|
Post by smartmouthwoman on Aug 7, 2013 1:07:12 GMT
The guillotine was designed to be a humane and efficient method of delivering a rapid death without danger of slow suffocation or whatever, and it should be relatively 'painless'. It a bit....ummm......messy, though! There is one argument that wins over any argument in favour of the death penalty every time for me - what if the police and courts get it wrong? They have been known to do that from time to time, and you can't really release someone who has been wrongly killed. A posthumous pardon is comforting for families, of course, but it's really not of much practical use to the dead person. It's one instance where I think it is just always better to err on the side of caution and allow them to stay alive, just in case. The risk of the death of one innocent person is not justified for me by either the desire for 'revenge' against the guilty, or the need to cut the costs of maintaining the prison population. I can relate. I feel the same way about one baby feeling pain when it's sucked outta the womb. Not worth preventing a mother from being inconvenienced by a child if you ask me. Please pick one from Texas Death Row and I'll be more than happy to pay his/her way to your house. www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/dr_scheduled_executions.html |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 7, 2013 2:45:55 GMT
The guillotine was designed to be a humane and efficient method of delivering a rapid death without danger of slow suffocation or whatever, and it should be relatively 'painless'. It a bit....ummm......messy, though! There is one argument that wins over any argument in favour of the death penalty every time for me - what if the police and courts get it wrong? They have been known to do that from time to time, and you can't really release someone who has been wrongly killed. A posthumous pardon is comforting for families, of course, but it's really not of much practical use to the dead person. It's one instance where I think it is just always better to err on the side of caution and allow them to stay alive, just in case. The risk of the death of one innocent person is not justified for me by either the desire for 'revenge' against the guilty, or the need to cut the costs of maintaining the prison population. That's why the Death Penalty is given only to the worst of the worst. There's always the chance some sympathetic parole board or judge will release a convicted murderer back out onto the public too. |
|
