Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Return Capital Punishment - ReCaP
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 16 of 101 (313958)
05-20-2006 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Malachi-II
05-20-2006 3:30 PM


Miscarriage of justice
I would remind you, and others who raise the same question, that science has provided an infallible (?) safeguard against innocent people being found guilty of murder through DNA. If there is no conclusive DNA evidence to convict, then no conviction can be safe.
This sounds naive. There isn't always DNA evidence available.
I suggest you read about the Nicarico case:
Northwestern report
Innocence project report
criminology society
Eric Zorn (columnist)
DNA considered not relevant
It is a sordid story of a justice system driven by emotion and political ambition, and the blatant exclusion of critical evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Malachi-II, posted 05-20-2006 3:30 PM Malachi-II has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Malachi-II, posted 05-21-2006 6:58 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 17 of 101 (313959)
05-20-2006 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Malachi-II
05-20-2006 3:45 PM


Re: Reply to anglagard
quote:
The danger of an innocent person being executed has 99% (if not 100%) been removed with the benefit of DNA.
Theoretically, speaking DNA testing could approach 100% accuracy. However, those DNA tests are run by humans, who occasionally make mistakes, are possibly open to bribery, and may have hidden agendas. The possibility of correcting such problems through multiple tests from different sources would, of course, go a long ways toward eliminating such errors. Such multiplicity of tests must be conducted and results not withheld before a death penalty conviction should be allowed, IMHO.
quote:
I am more comfortable with people who are prepared to make and act on difficult decisions for the protection of citizens who wish to go about their lawful activities in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Personally, I would prefer not having a death penalty if possible, on the moral grounds of the state playing God. However, the primary duty of the state is to protect its citizens. If such a state proves incapable of permanantly isolating incorrigible murderers from the general populace, then I would have to view the death penalty, provided such convictions were way beyond reasonable doubt, as a viable means to fulfill the primary duty of the state.
If the condition of guaranteed life without parole, including without escape, was implemented, I would be 100% against the death penalty. At the moment, the US has not quite met this condition, therefore, I am not quite 100% against.
Incidentally, I am a US citizen and have every right to speak as one.
I agree completelly. Incidentally, I am a Libertarian, so I believe everyone on Earth has a right to say whatever they want provided by doing so they do not directly and immediately endanger life, limb, or property.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Malachi-II, posted 05-20-2006 3:45 PM Malachi-II has not replied

  
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6244 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 18 of 101 (314088)
05-21-2006 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by nwr
05-20-2006 4:49 PM


Re: Miscarriage of justice
It is a sordid story of a justice system driven by emotion and political ambition, and the blatant exclusion of critical evidence.
If what you have said is true, and I have no reason to doubt your remark, then our so-called 'civilized societies' seem truly lost in terms of upward and uplifting evolution.
Yes, I was and still am naive enough to believe that our species have evolved for purposes far above and beyond the material aspects of life as still perceived by the large majority of our species. I still, despite evidence to the contrary, believe and trust in the idea that we have evolved as near to the image of whatever Gods we worship, or otherwise, as any other creatures. The most depressing (personal) realization is of our deliberate failure to recognize and accept that we are children of a divine creator and were destined to perpetuate growth through compassionate love that few of our species seems to understand.
I remarked in an earlier message that I believe we are determined to consume anything and everything available in our complete ignorance of the greatness that is waiting, and wanting.
May I say, regarding my thoughts about capital punishment, that I firmly believe it would be more humane, moral, and kind to put to death those human beings who are filled with so much hate for others that they feel an urge to KILL. It would be compassionate and kind to end such destitute lives. I can say that because I am sure that life does not end in mortal death. I am convinced that a loving God (Creator) is far more capable of dealing with lost souls than we are in our present miserable state of stagnation.
Thank you for your thoughtful references to case reports.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 05-20-2006 4:49 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by CK, posted 05-21-2006 7:31 AM Malachi-II has replied

  
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6244 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 19 of 101 (314089)
05-21-2006 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by iano
05-20-2006 4:03 PM


Re: Reply to iano
I think that punishment and rehabilitation should form co-central strands of the process. Your own proposal does neither. Neither does it contain any subtlety by way of discretion which would attempt to deal with the myriad levels as to why one person kills another. If you suppose murder is murder is murder then the paedophile who rapes and kills a child would get the same treatment as someone who had been provoked by a beating husband. For example.
You are absolutely right, of course. I introduced a subject that, as most people know, is highly emotive, controversial, politically charged and socially repugnant. It would take volumes to properly address the subject. I merely touched the surface. The motive for introducing the subject was primarily to draw attention to the injustices and corruption that is rampant in all so-called civilized societies. Evidence in support of my last sentence is painfully obvious to anyone with guts enough to see it. I will go further and suggest that most of us lack the guts or the will to reverse the decline of our glorious species.
The few responses my original message has received seem to confirm my deep pessimism. In short, I think we've blown it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by iano, posted 05-20-2006 4:03 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by iano, posted 05-21-2006 8:23 AM Malachi-II has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 20 of 101 (314091)
05-21-2006 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Malachi-II
05-21-2006 6:58 AM


Re: Miscarriage of justice
quote:
May I say, regarding my thoughts about capital punishment, that I firmly believe it would be more humane, moral, and kind to put to death those human beings who are filled with so much hate for others that they feel an urge to KILL. It would be compassionate and kind to end such destitute lives. I can say that because I am sure that life does not end in mortal death. I am convinced that a loving God (Creator) is far more capable of dealing with lost souls than we are in our present miserable state of stagnation.
By that logic it's therefore ok to help some kill themselves if they feel that life is not worth carrying on with or they have a serious degenerative illness?
Moreover, if someone finds God in prison and spend the rest of their life (in prison) trying to convince others not to waste their lives in a similar manner - they are a lost destitute soul that would be better off dead? Rather than working with the holy spirit in them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Malachi-II, posted 05-21-2006 6:58 AM Malachi-II has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Malachi-II, posted 05-22-2006 5:03 PM CK has replied
 Message 53 by Malachi-II, posted 05-26-2006 3:24 AM CK has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 21 of 101 (314100)
05-21-2006 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Malachi-II
05-21-2006 7:16 AM


Re: Reply to iano
The motive for introducing the subject was primarily to draw attention to the injustices and corruption that is rampant in all so-called civilized societies. Evidence in support of my last sentence is painfully obvious to anyone with guts enough to see it.
Me, I'm bible-led. This tells me that civilization has always been injust and corrupt. That there was never a time when it wasn't. Society might swing from one form of injustice and corruption to another but find it we will in any time. The current post-modern model supposes that a man is not truly responsible for what he does: genetic make-up, upbringing, prosperity (or lack thereof), the influence of drugs/drink consumed affecting his ability to discern right from wrong, indeed the blurring of what IS right and wrong - are all ingredients on the pot and lead to the notion that absolute responsibility for a crime cannot be laid soley at the feet of the offender. Once you blur the boundaries thus you open the way to the kind of ludicrous 'judgements' that can be handed down. There is no black and white - just shades of grey. And depending on the judge, jury, current philosophical fad and the skill/cost of an advocate, one offender will recieve a different shade of punishment than the other.
The system doesn't seek to rehabilitate - it just doles out varying degrees of punishment according to a shifting sea of what constitutes justice.
But your own ideas are equally unbiblical it seems to me. A death sentence for a crime committed can only see man playing God. All the facts can never be known. Even if the fact WERE all known there is no room in this thinking for "he who has not sinned" ...the principle that all deserve the death sentence for their sin...but that grace and mercy are the overriding principles to be invoked - not that anyone gets pulled up to court for adultery these days?
Which makes this notion all the more peculiar...
I will go further and suggest that most of us lack the guts or the will to reverse the decline of our glorious species.
Glorious species? We certainly don't treat each other like this is what we are. We are capable of the most vicious, cruel and inhumane behaviour of anything that walks this earth - are we not?
What you seem to be attempting to do in proposing a death penalty is play God. We are in no position to do so. And whilst we must of necessity seek to do our best so as not to have society fall assunder any more that it already has we must be careful not to assume ourselves to be divine. We should be humble enough to recognise that we are arriving at purely subjective notions as to seriousness. Notions which are heavily influenced by the time in which we live. What was seen as a crime yesterday (murder is murder) is seen otherwise today (murder has shades) and will no doubt be seen as something different tomorrow. Subjective. Therefore we should be circumspect about dealing in absolutes. And there is nothing more absolute than the death sentence. Its so very Eye for an Eye. So very OT (or OTT). So very not "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"
If man was half as glorious as you say, his central desire would be that his fallen, yet still glorious brother would somehow be redeemed. That he would come to understand and admit to the error of his ways. And that by this he would be restored to 'glory'. By all means take account of that which influenced him, by all means take account of his poor upbringing. But never let the tools he used in the mechanism of his wrong doing be seen as other than tools to which he applied the force. Punish him by all means - but be prepared to forgive. For we are all in need of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Malachi-II, posted 05-21-2006 7:16 AM Malachi-II has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Malachi-II, posted 05-22-2006 5:02 PM iano has replied

  
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6244 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 22 of 101 (314413)
05-22-2006 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by iano
05-21-2006 8:23 AM


Re: Reply to iano
I waited 11 days for someone to reply to my opening salvo and at least three people repeated the boring mantra about ”playing God’. How dare anyone play God!! Roughly half the people on this enlightened forum deny God’s existence and the other half launch into their act of being outraged that anyone should PLAY God.
I address this paragraph to those who read the Bible. Genesis 26 (okay?) “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness . . . .” Now, what do you make of that? Question 1: If Moses wrote Genesis, is he saying that we were created in the physical image of God, or is he saying we were created in the spiritual image of God? Okay? Question 2: Same verse, who are the “Us” that made man in their image? Was there more than one God? Question 3: If we were made in the image of the Creator doesn’t that, by definition, form kind of a close link in us? Like, uh, aren’t we sort of related to God somewhere along the line? Or are you stuck in the image of being “Born in sin!”? Are you sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, those tearaways who disobeyed God and dined on fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Who are You?
This paragraph is addressed to those who do not believe in God, or any other divine being. What moral - as opposed to judicial - laws do you abide by? If you are a Libertarian and hold that all humans have free will. Do you also believe that a person who exercises their free will to take the life of their victim should rot in a cell? Or does a just society have the right to exercise free will and take the life of the offender? Or do you believe that free will should be limited? Another question: Do you think that free will carries any moral responsibility on the part of those who exercise free will? If so, how far should that moral responsibility extend? Does it stop at invading another nation and killing innocent civilians who just happen to get in the way of aerial bombardment? Or is that okay because a nation’s leader says so?
This next paragraph is addressed to all concerned. I have hinted at what I now declare to be a serious notion - I cannot (yet) positively make it a statement of fact. We are all created in the image of a divine entity (God, if you like) and we are supposed to have become aware of this birthright in the course of millions of years in our evolutionary process. It was intended that we continue the evolutionary process in further developing our understanding of and relationship with our divine Creator.
If believers and non-believers carefully read the last three verses of Genesis - with an open mind, please. You will be aware that God saw all that He made was good, including the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil!! Okay? Now, what do you think that meant? I think it symbolized the birth of conscious reason from instinctive responses in our emerging species. Was that not a clear demonstration of Our likeness with God? I mean, we have the divine will to make choices. We are free to choose to do what is right or what is not right. Okay? Now for the crunch: Are we, or are we not, obliged to BE as Gods when called upon to deal justly with those who commit heinous crimes against innocent children of our Father? Or will we continue to pass the buck?
Edited by Malachi-II, : Withdrew the offensive (Yawn) with apologies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by iano, posted 05-21-2006 8:23 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by iano, posted 05-22-2006 5:29 PM Malachi-II has replied

  
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6244 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 23 of 101 (314414)
05-22-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by CK
05-21-2006 7:31 AM


Re: Miscarriage of justice
I waited 11 days for someone to reply to my opening salvo and at least three people repeated the boring mantra about ”playing God’. How dare anyone play God!! Roughly half the people on this enlightened forum deny God’s existence and the other half launch into their act of being outraged that anyone should PLAY God.
I address this paragraph to those who read the Bible. Genesis 26 (okay?) “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness . . . .” Now, what do you make of that? Question 1: If Moses wrote Genesis, is he saying that we were created in the physical image of God, or is he saying we were created in the spiritual image of God? Okay? Question 2: Same verse, who are the “Us” that made man in their image? Was there more than one God? Question 3: If we were made in the image of the Creator doesn’t that, by definition, form kind of a close link in us? Like, uh, aren’t we sort of related to God somewhere along the line? Or are you stuck in the image of being “Born in sin!”? Are you sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, those tearaways who disobeyed God and dined on fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Who are You?
This paragraph is addressed to those who do not believe in God, or any other divine being. What moral - as opposed to judicial - laws do you abide by? If you are a Libertarian and hold that all humans have free will. Do you also believe that a person who exercises their free will to take the life of their victim should rot in a cell? Or does a just society have the right to exercise free will and take the life of the offender? Or do you believe that free will should be limited? Another question: Do you think that free will carries any moral responsibility on the part of those who exercise free will? If so, how far should that moral responsibility extend? Does it stop at invading another nation and killing innocent civilians who just happen to get in the way of aerial bombardment? Or is that okay because a nation’s leader says so?
This next paragraph is addressed to all concerned. I have hinted at what I now declare to be a serious notion - I cannot (yet) positively make it a statement of fact. We are all created in the image of a divine entity (God, if you like) and we are supposed to have become aware of this birthright in the course of millions of years in our evolutionary process. It was intended that we continue the evolutionary process in further developing our understanding of and relationship with our divine Creator.
If believers and non-believers carefully read the last three verses of Genesis - with an open mind, please. You will be aware that God saw all that He made was good, including the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil!! Okay? Now, what do you think that meant? I think it symbolized the birth of conscious reason from instinctive responses in our emerging species. Was that not a clear demonstration of Our likeness with God? I mean, we have the divine will to make choices. We are free to choose to do what is right or what is not right. Okay? Now for the crunch: Are we, or are we not, obliged to BE as Gods when called upon to deal justly with those who commit heinous crimes against innocent children of our Father? Or will we continue to pass the buck?
Edited by Malachi-II, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by CK, posted 05-21-2006 7:31 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by CK, posted 05-22-2006 5:41 PM Malachi-II has replied

  
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6244 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 24 of 101 (314417)
05-22-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by anglagard
05-18-2006 1:29 AM


Second reply to anglagard
AdminNosy: I'm not smart enough to see how this is connected to the topic. No one is to reply to this.
That's all it would take to render the death penalty unnecessary. Also, I am more comfortable with a state that does not seek to play God, as well as a God that does not seek to play state.
I waited 11 days for someone to reply to my opening salvo and at least three people repeated the boring mantra about ”playing God’. How dare anyone play God!! Roughly half the people on this enlightened forum deny God’s existence and the other half launch into their act of being outraged that anyone should PLAY God.
I address this paragraph to those who read the Bible. Genesis 26 (okay?) “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness . . . .” Now, what do you make of that? Question 1: If Moses wrote Genesis, is he saying that we were created in the physical image of God, or is he saying we were created in the spiritual image of God? Okay? Question 2: Same verse, who are the “Us” that made man in their image? Was there more than one God? Question 3: If we were made in the image of the Creator doesn’t that, by definition, form kind of a close link in us? Like, uh, aren’t we sort of related to God somewhere along the line? Or are you stuck in the image of being “Born in sin!”? Are you sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, those tearaways who disobeyed God and dined on fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Who are You?
This paragraph is addressed to those who do not believe in God, or any other divine being. What moral - as opposed to judicial - laws do you abide by? If you are a Libertarian and hold that all humans have free will. Do you also believe that a person who exercises their free will to take the life of their victim should rot in a cell? Or does a just society have the right to exercise free will and take the life of the offender? Or do you believe that free will should be limited? Another question: Do you think that free will carries any moral responsibility on the part of those who exercise free will? If so, how far should that moral responsibility extend? Does it stop at invading another nation and killing innocent civilians who just happen to get in the way of aerial bombardment? Or is that okay because a nation’s leader says so?
This next paragraph is addressed to all concerned. I have hinted at what I now declare to be a serious notion - I cannot (yet) positively make it a statement of fact. We are all created in the image of a divine entity (God, if you like) and we are supposed to have become aware of this birthright in the course of millions of years in our evolutionary process. It was intended that we continue the evolutionary process in further developing our understanding of and relationship with our divine Creator.
If believers and non-believers carefully read the last three verses of Genesis - with an open mind, please. You will be aware that God saw all that He made was good, including the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil!! Okay? Now, what do you think that meant? I think it symbolized the birth of conscious reason from instinctive responses in our emerging species. Was that not a clear demonstration of Our likeness with God? I mean, we have the divine will to make choices. We are free to choose to do what is right or what is not right. Okay? Now for the crunch: Are we, or are we not, obliged to BE as Gods when called upon to deal justly with those who commit heinous crimes against innocent children of our Father? Or will we continue to pass the buck?
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
Edited by Malachi-II, : Withdrew the offensive (Yawn) with apologies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by anglagard, posted 05-18-2006 1:29 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Malachi-II, posted 05-23-2006 1:33 PM Malachi-II has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 25 of 101 (314423)
05-22-2006 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Malachi-II
05-22-2006 5:02 PM


Kidz-R-us
Was that not a clear demonstration of Our likeness with God? I mean, we have the divine will to make choices. We are free to choose to do what is right or what is not right. Okay? Now for the crunch: Are we, or are we not, obliged to BE as Gods when called upon to deal justly with those who commit heinous crimes against innocent children of our Father? Or will we continue to pass the buck?
We were made in the image and likeness of God indeed. We were given, by the divine who chose to do so, free will to choose what was right (obey God) or what was wrong (disobey God). God is the one who decides what is right and wrong. We only get to choose - not to define - what is right and wrong. If we are to define what is right and wrong then we would be like God - not made in his likeness - which is a different thing. This word from the serpent tempting Eve should indicate to us that being like God is NOT how we are to be.
quote:
For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
The relationship between God and redeemed man is that of sonship. And adopted sonship at that. When it comes to the monumental decisions to be made in the family, such as whether a person lives or dies, then that should be left up to the Daddy and Mammy. Certainly not the kiddies. Who would leave life and death decisions up to the kids?
innocent
Perhaps you could define this word. In a biblical sense I mean

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Malachi-II, posted 05-22-2006 5:02 PM Malachi-II has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Malachi-II, posted 05-23-2006 1:17 PM iano has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 26 of 101 (314427)
05-22-2006 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Malachi-II
05-22-2006 5:03 PM


Cut and paste response
I'm not sure the best way to encourage people to debate with you is to answer with YAWN and then cut and paste the same general answer to 3 different people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Malachi-II, posted 05-22-2006 5:03 PM Malachi-II has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 05-22-2006 5:51 PM CK has not replied
 Message 28 by Malachi-II, posted 05-23-2006 1:13 PM CK has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 27 of 101 (314432)
05-22-2006 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by CK
05-22-2006 5:41 PM


Re: Cut and paste response
For those of you not in the US might I suggest that you good folk research House vs Bell. It involves evidence, including DNA as well as the issue of convictions based on that evidence.
Once we have perfected a way of reversing and recinding the death penalty, I will be more likely to support its application. Once we can come back, years or decades after putting someone to death and reverse all that has been done it might be a viable option.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by CK, posted 05-22-2006 5:41 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Malachi-II, posted 05-23-2006 1:24 PM jar has replied

  
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6244 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 28 of 101 (314620)
05-23-2006 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by CK
05-22-2006 5:41 PM


Re: Cut and paste response
I keep asking specific questions of people who seem to respond in similar ways, i.e. none of my questions receive answers. It appears that my questions are ignored. In response I am often preached at. Is that what is called a debate?
I cut and pasted the same message to three people because, in my view, it dealt with main issues of possible interest to each person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by CK, posted 05-22-2006 5:41 PM CK has not replied

  
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6244 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 29 of 101 (314622)
05-23-2006 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by iano
05-22-2006 5:29 PM


Re: Kidz-R-us
Perhaps you could define the word innocent. In a biblical sense I mean
Perhaps you would be kind enough to first answer the specific questions I put to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by iano, posted 05-22-2006 5:29 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by iano, posted 05-23-2006 2:14 PM Malachi-II has not replied

  
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6244 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 30 of 101 (314629)
05-23-2006 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
05-22-2006 5:51 PM


Re: Cut and paste response
Once we have perfected a way of reversing and recinding the death penalty, I will be more likely to support its application. Once we can come back, years or decades after putting someone to death and reverse all that has been done it might be a viable option.
I'm sorry? Apart from your reference to the case of House vs Bell I am not able to follow you. Will you please explain what you are meaning. It must be my fault for misunderstanding your choice of words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 05-22-2006 5:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 05-23-2006 1:28 PM Malachi-II has replied
 Message 37 by Quetzal, posted 05-23-2006 5:49 PM Malachi-II has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024