Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty

I'm not sure about most things, but I'm totally sure that the death penalty will never be re-introduced in the UK. People will still want murderes murdered. Nothing will change that. Punishment? Not necessarily. That concept is pretty biblical. Certainly society's offenders have to be dealt with somehow, but how is open to discussion. Wilco, right after you guys stop selling rifles in Walmart next to the corn flakes.

Indeed we do. But I notice that you're moving the goalposts. Suddenly you're talking about shootings by beat cops - something that I oppose.We do have armed police in the UK though; we have specialist, highly trained firearms units. They are necessary. When someone does get hold of a firearm and goes crazy with it, the police need to be armed to stand a chance of stopping him. That is the clear social benefit to armed police; they are equipped to protect people when the shit has hit the fan.Routinely arming police is a different matter. That leads to many needless deaths. Having some atrmed police is a trade off. It will lead to innocent deaths on occasion, but that is balanced by the benefit of having adequate protection against armed criminals. In the case of capital punishment, there is no such benefit to balance things out. All you have is innocent lives being lost so that ghouls can gloat over the death of those they despise. No contest. If you are talking to me, then it matters what I think. It is pointless for you to say "But what about the lives lost in scenario X?" when I do not favour scenario X. Here you present me with a false dichotomy. You present the choice as though the only alternatives are an unreconstructed prison system, exactly as it is today (something that I have already told you I oppose) or the death penalty.Prison does have a role to play. Some people are simply a danger to others and society must protect itself from such individuals. Some sort of imprisonment is the least worst option. But the status quo is not the only option.Oh, and rates of recidivism are hardly relevant. It's not like the kind of offenders we're discussing are likely to ever be released in most jurisdictions. None. That's why I'm against it. With no clear benefit to the death penalty, I'm against that too.There's no point in making comparisons to other things that I already oppose. That would never have happened in my country. Shooting at people because they flee or fail to obey commands is not something I favour.There's no point in making comparisons to other things that I already oppose. But you keep pointing out the flaws in systems that I have already told you I oppose.I am using the same rationale throughout; minimising innocent lives being lost whilst retaining systems that might cause loss of innocent lives only where there is a clear and pressing benefit to society or where it is unavoidable. By not routinely arming cops, by not allowing citizens to own handguns and by not having capital punishment, we minimise the loss of innocent lives. Introduce the death penalty and you push up the number of innocents killed, but you do so for no clear benefit. Then you are lying to yourself. Go ahead if it makes you feel better, just don't expect me to treat it as if it were a rational argument. I'm afraid that those are mutually exclusive. The imprisoned murderer is still available as in subject for study. The dead one ain't, unless you have a ouija board. Sure. I saw Hicks do that one in person though. He did it better. I understand that. I just don't understand you have such faith in the trial process, which you know is deeply flawed by incompetence and corruption. I would not trust that system with my life. It seems odd to me that you would trust it with yours. That sounds like a much better conversation for us as a society to be having. It raises the bar for human rights and human dignity. Isn't that a better idea than the death penalty, which lowers the value of human life? Thank God, I couldn't sleep for worrying.I'm still right though; you're only in favour of the death penalty because when you think about it, you imagine it is going to happen to someone else, not you. I'm sure that the victims of wrongful executions all felt the same... until it did happen to them.Mutate and Survive

On the subject of Innocents being executed:The wrong Carlos: how Texas sent an innocent man to his death | Capital punishment | The Guardian"Carlos DeLuna was arrested, aged 20, on 4 February 1983 for the brutal murder of a young woman, Wanda Lopez. She had been stabbed once through the left breast with an 8in lock-blade buck knife which had cut an artery causing her to bleed to death.From the moment of his arrest until the day of his death by lethal injection six years later, DeLuna consistently protested he was innocent. He went further — he said that though he hadn't committed the murder, he knew who had. He even named the culprit: a notoriously violent criminal called Carlos Hernandez."

A guy that was arrested claimed he was innocent? OMG stop everything! He did not initially name anyone as the "culprit". It was way after that he actually decided to name names. In trying to clear his name, De Luna didn't help himself. For months after his arrest, he refused to reveal the name of the real killer, because he feared Hernandez. His credibility plummeted when other parts of his alibi for the night of the murder were disproven by the prosecutor. And his alibi being discredited did him in. The fateful night began, according to De Luna, when he went to a skating rink, where he met Hernandez and two sisters. De Luna admitted that he was near the gas station later, but said he was across the street in a bar. While he nursed his drink, Hernandez bought cigarettes in the Shamrock. He said he emerged from the bar to see Hernandez fighting with Lopez. Hearing police sirens, he said he fled, because he didn't want to get into trouble.

​

The prosecution, however, discredited De Luna's version of events. One of the sisters who was allegedly with him at the rink testified that she was at her baby shower that night.

​

"I had blown his alibi to bits," said Steve Schiwetz, one of the prosecutors.Here are the reasons why they feel he may be innocent.Among the key findings in the Columbia team's report:

​

The eyewitness statements actually conflict with each other. What witnesses said about the appearance and location of the suspect suggest that they were describing more than one person.

​

Photos of a bloody footprint and blood spatter on the walls suggest the killer would have had blood on his shoes and pant legs, yet De Luna's clothes were clean.

​

Prosecutors and police ignored tips unearthed in the case files that Carlos Hernandez, an older friend of De Luna, who had a reputation for wielding a blade, had killed Lopez. The defense failed to track down Hernandez, who bore a striking resemblance to De Luna.But we'll leave the final word with his own defence attorney:One of De Luna's attorneys, James Lawrence, told HuffPost he doesn't count him among the clients who've been wrongfully accused of capital crimes.

​

"The fact that he wouldn't help us and this was his life on the line -- that's the one thing that kept bothering the living daylights out of me," Lawrence said.

Not moving goalposts, just putting it in terms you being from the UK can understand. I realized that beat cop was more of what I meant when I said police officer and I was worried we had a bit of miscommunication. No one gloats over the deaths, Granny. Don't buy into the hype. It is a sad day when someone has to be put to death for the crimes they commit. In fact there is no emotion there. The men who's duty it is to do it carry it out because it is their job. No one is gloating, you 're better than that. It doesn't matter what you favor, other than to you of course. The reality is that innocent lives are lost in "scenario X" regardless of whether you agree with it or not. And scenario X is a much more common scenario than an innocent life lost due to capital punishment. Then you missed my point. I'm just asking you to literally explain to me the social benefits of the prison system as it is today. Realistically. Not the utopian jail you have in mind. That is a very small few the "dangerous to society" ones. Most people in prison are there on drug offenses. And most of the dangerous ones are repeat offenders who became more violent after being realsed from prison. So it was very likely they became the danger to society because of the prison system. So the social benefit seems to be non-existent.My point is this, before we derail this whole thing, from prisons to armed beat cops, there is no social benefit. So to signal out the death penalty as not being socially beneficial seems irrelevant. It doesn't matter that you agree, the point is the systems will exist regardless of your opinion. Regardless of whether they are a social benefit or not. They exist because they do. No logic, rhyme or reason behind most of the systems in place, they just are. Yeah, I agree with that. But again, who gives a shit? All of those systems are in place and operate in America. My point in this thread has always been that it's incosistent to select one of those systems to oppose while at the same time supporting two of the other ones.You can read back to the beginning, people opposed to the death penalty but for armed cops. People against the death penalty but support the ownershiip of guns by citizens. It is inconsistent to say the least. Why am I lying to myself just because you don't agree with me? You're lying to yourself thinking they fit the qualities of a human being. So there...I'm not trying to make myself feel better either. I'm also not saying that they become an animal and therefore it's easier to kill them. I don't think you know how death row works in this country. You're not convicted then ushered into a room and killed. You are given an almost endless amount of appeals that span years and decades. Plenty of time to study them. He was the best, I should hope he was better than me writing it in a forum But that's the point, it's not the same system. In one case you have who know's who deciding to assassinate some dude. In the other case you have a jury, two lawyers, a judge, then an almost endless appeal process where different people look at the case over and over again.The latter I trust wayyy more than the former. And yet you can read it here, people supporting the former but not the latter. No, because again, I do not consider serial killers and violent murders worthy of human rights and/or dignity. Their death means nothing to me. If they were tortured it would mean nothing to me. So I do not agree that the death penalty lowers the value of human life because the lives of those sentenced to it are of no value to me. No Granny, you're not right. I'm in favor of it because as an already functioning system I feel it provides a service. It gets rid of the extremely violent criminals. If it was abolished tomorrow then I would be in favor of whatever aggressive form of punishment took it's place.If I got shot by a beat cop, I do not feel cops should stop carrying guns. If I was shot by a civilian I do not think all civilians should stop carrying guns. And as ridiculous as the scenrio sounds, if I was wrongfully executed I do not think all death penalties should stop. I still find reasons to keep all of these systems functioning regardless of their flaws.- Oni

OMG! Stop everything! it seems there was little, if any, evidence to tie De Luna to the crime.
Now he's dead.

Not true. Rick Perry recently boasted of his shameful record of state sanctioned homicide and the crowd whooped and hollered like they were on AMerican Idol.Gloating over the revenge is the only argument in favour of the death penalty. You're talking to me. You're not talking to someone who supports the things you keep dragging into the conversation. It's a waste of time. But you can't use that to call me inconsistent if I don't support it in the first place. It's getting tedious. You keep pointing to other bad things and saying look at this, this is bad. Well yeah. But that has nothing to do with whether the death penalty is bad or not. Do you see the words "prison system" in the thread title? We're not talking about the merits of the prison system, we're talking about capital punishment. This is ludicrous. If you feel that prisons and armed police hold no social benefit you should oppose them. Without a clear social benefit to the death penalty, I will continue to oppose that. You certainly have not articulated any benefit, other than it makes you feel better. A defeatist argument. If everyone thought that way, society would never advance. About minimising the loss of innocent lives? Well, you said that you did... No, that's completely illogical. That would only be true if they were all of equal value, which they are not. You're not talking to people, you're talking to me. If you want to illustrate what you see as an inconsistency in my argument, you need to address my argument, not that of someone else nor the argument you wish I were making. It is tiresome reading your objections to arguments that I did not make. You are lying to yourself because even though he was an evil man, John Wayne Gacy was still a member of the species Homo sapiens. This is an obvious fact. To describe him as anything other than human is to engage in a comforting fantasy. Dehumanising the person you intend to kill is an extremely common way of avoiding feelings of guilt over that death. It has been used by everyone from the serial killers you despise to genocidal regimes. You are doing it now. You are pretending that those you want to kill are less than human. I can well imagine how this might help you avoid a normal emotional response to that, but it's still a fantasy. I know perfectly well how it works. The fact remains that a person who is killed is no longer able to contribute anything back to the society that they wronged. Only the living can do that. And, just to remind you once more, I'm not one of them.But yes, I did acknowledge the difference. It's just that with all the documented examples of juries, lawyers and judges being corrupt or incompetent, I feel disinclined to place my life in their hands. Even after an appeals process, mistakes (and fit-ups and cover-ups) still happen. The Birmingham Six had their first appeal quashed, even though it blatantly obvious that they had been framed. they would likely have been executed at that point under the US system. Instead they walked free. that could not have happened if they had been killed.I too would trust a judicial system more than an assassin. I just wouldn't trust it with my life or yours. that's too much power for a state to have. It's too easy to abuse, too easy to turn into a weapon against the poor , against ethnic minorities, against anyone who is despised by those in power, which means most of us. We live in societies where poor people are treated like shit on a daily basis, but you think that's all going to disappear when they get convicted of a capital rime? Fat chance. And I thought that human rights were universal. What the hell is the point in having rights if they can be taken away just because of your personal convictions? I'm not asking you to flee sorry for them. It is entirely appropriate to feel antipathy toward them. But that doesn't give you the right to kill them.Mutate and Survive

Onifre (quoting Granny in the inner box) writes: And later Onifre adds: If we divide the innocent deaths problem like this, then we can treat each subproblem with a separate solution. The first problem is solved by arming cops with non-lethal "bullets", a technology problem that may be possible soon. The second problem is most likely intractable because the citizens will always need a way to revolt against their government - we have to live with it. The third problem is the one most easily solved: just stop doing it.Just because two of the problems cannot be solved easily, doesn't mean that the one of them that is easy to solve shouldn't solved. One size (living with it) does not fit all.In conjunction with the 1st problem, there is also the High-Speed Chase problem which may result in collateral damages and death to innocents - this may also be replaced with a technological solution of corralling the suspect more gently.The second problem may be approached in the manner of the old Western saloon, where you check your guns at the door before you are allowed inside. Certain inner city areas could be declared a saloon in this manner. Does this still maintain the citizenry's ability to revolt (provided they haven't already lost this ability*)?So, yeah, I give a shit.* IMHO it's too late - "they" have nuclear weapons, tanks & missilesEdited by xongsmith, : The agony of clone-drop in the wrong place.

Dude - You raised the whole 'danger to others prisoners' thing as a justification/criteria here and I simply showed how you aren't applying this in any even remotely sensible manner. So what exactly does justify the death penalty? So you think that whatever the law says defines what is justifiable? Chopping people's hands off for theft is justified if that is what the law says? Laws opposing inter-racial marriage are justified if that is what the law says? Whose law? In Europe we don't have the death penalty so are you saying that the death penalty isn't justified in Europe but is in the US? How does that make sense?Surely the law should reflect what is justified rather than what is justified be dictated by what the law says. Right? Well you have certainly demonstrated that yours is. However I haven't yet seen you demonstrate any inconsistency with what I have said. Ahhh. I see. You are doing a jar..... Yes - That is the question. And increasingly the civilised world rejects the death penalty as a morally justifiable solution to that question.Why do you think that is?

Fair enough. I thought you meant the execusioners gloated or the members of the death row staff treated the whole thing like a killing party. Which is not the case I hope you realise that. It's a very somber moment treated with the upmost care and respect.But yeah Rick Perry is a political cunt so, fuck him. Politicians obviously use whatever they can use to generate a following, even sickening things like gloating over capital punishment. God damnit granny you're seriously not understanding why I'm saying it doesn't matter what you favor. We're discussing capital punishment in the US where there are also other systems in place (regardless of whether you favor them or not) that are relevant to our discussion in the overall morality argument that needs to be compared. Yes granny you too fall under a kind of inconsistency when YOU favor assassinations of dictators.Message 105

quote:

---

Arguably in the death penalty can be supported in the case of dictators. there is no doubt over their guilt and there is a clear benefit to society in drawing a line under their regimes. I might support assassinations under similar circumstances, it would depend upon a lot of factors.

---

I am allowed to make a point, yes? When you say what are the social benefits of the death penalty, I am allowed to then ask well what are the social benefits of the entire prison system given that it does more harm than good, yes?I can do that right, or should this discussion take place in a vacuum where no other references can be brought in? Well no, I don't. Just because it's not a benefit as in, it's like like welfare or social security, doesn't mean it doesn't have a place within the system. Somethings operate outside of their social benefit and are more along the lines of a social neccessity.The prison system doesn't benefit society in anyway, but it is still a neccesity unfortunately because crimes will always exist. I'm just being a realist. Somethings have to exist regardless of their social benefit, and as I just wrote, operate more so as a social neccesity. All you can try to do is make them slightly better, like opting for solitary confinment or special housing units. But, as I've pointed out, those too come with their share of problems.So in the end, you have a social neccesity functioning the best it can, but still pretty shitty. This is life, time to do drugs. The scale that weighs the "value" is subjective and therefore not relevant. All 3 take innocent lives. I did, but you're making a mess of all this by jumbling what I said addressing one thing to mean I'm addressing something else.In the overall arguement there are incosistencies. In the arguement between you and your opinions specifically, you show an inconsistency when you supported the death penalty for dictators and assassinations.You see, you too granny. I don't mean his DNA changes. I get that he's still classifed homo sapien, but his social role is not that of a human being. I don't want to kill anyone dude. When someone breaks away from the social role of being a human being functioning within a society they stop playing the social role of being a human. They themselves ackowledge it too. And the fact remains that they are living for many many years and are able to contribute much to society before they are put to death. Yes you are one of them:

quote:

---

Arguably in the death penalty can be supported in the case of dictators. there is no doubt over their guilt and there is a clear benefit to society in drawing a line under their regimes. I might support assassinations under similar circumstances, it would depend upon a lot of factors.

---

Removing capital punishment doesn't change any of that. The poor will still suffer under whatever new form of punishment replaces it. Special housing units, solitary confinment are forms of torture. Are inhumane. Are cruel and unusual punishment. And in that form of punishment there is NO appealing for the poor, they can't afford it.The death penalty system is the only one that affords poor people the right to continuousy appeal their verdict. And only because they are a minor few.I'll grant you this, the whole thing seems kinda fucked any which way it goes. Time to do more drugs?- Oni

As my feelings of justification, but it's not a criteria for the state. The extent of the crime.In other words, a guy in an argument with a dude pulls out a gun and shots him. He murdered that dude. But I personally don't think that justifies putting them to death even though they are a murderer and also, seem to be very unpredictable and violent.A guy who preys on yong victims for example, and rapes, tortures and kills them does, to me, justify the death penalty. Come on Straggler, you know that is not the case. I'm simply trying to seperate myself and my opinions from the judicial system and their method of operation.When you ask what justifies the death penalty for me, I give you my criteria. But I don't want you to confuse that for being the criteria the state uses. It seemed like you were doing that. See, you're doing it here.What justifies the death penalty to me and what criteria the US uses is two different things that you are jumbling together. Should Bin Laden have been assassiinated?Should Hussein have been put to death?If they caught Hitler what should they have done to him?I trust that you'll be honest in your answer and not just try to win the debate. I don't know what that means? Because they are under the illusion that what replaces the death penalty is a more moral solution. But they are very very wrong.- Oni

But doesn't it make you want to deny him that particular propaganda tool? We both know that politicians use executions as campaign tools, usually hard-Right nuts like Perry... doesn't that make you want to oppose the death penalty, just to fuck with them? C'mon, you know it makes sense.Seriously though, this strikes me as a pretty good argument against the death penalty. You may trust your life to the state, but can you really trust it to a goon like Perry? We both know that some politicians have sent men to their deaths for political reasons;

quote:

---

Lethal Elections: Gubernatorial Politics and the Timing of Executions

​

Jeffrey D. Kubik

​

Syracuse University - Department of Economics

​

John R. Moran

​

Penn State University

​

September 2001

​

Abstract:
We document the existence of a gubernatorial election cycle in state executions, suggesting that election year political considerations play a role in determining the timing of executions. Our analysis indicates that states are approximately 25 percent more likely to conduct executions in gubernatorial election years than in other years. We also find that elections have a larger effect on the probability that an African American defendant will be executed in a given year than on the probability that a white defendant will be executed, and that the overall effect of elections is largest in the South and Midwest. These findings raise concerns that state executions may fail to meet the constitutional requirements stipulated by the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia for the administration of state death penalty laws.

---

To me, this seems like a pretty major flaw. I don't think that anyone should have to die so that some asshole politician can get re-elected. But the use of the death penalty doesn't do anything to address the wider problems of the prison system. It doesn't do anything to stop cops shooting people. Nor does abolishing the death penalty have any bearing on these problems.These are separate issues. We both agree that they are problems, but they have no direct bearing upon capital punishment. They're for different discussions. Not true. I was talking about the execution of toppled dictators, not arbitrary assassinations. I was talking about examples like Saddam or Milosevic. In such cases the removal of the former dictator ends their pernicious influence and thus provides a clear social benefit, by drawing a permanent line under their regime. I would, for example be reluctantly in favour of executing Assad, were he toppled. I would not be in favour of a western power assassinating Assad whilst he is still in office; the benefit is far less clear cut, mostly due to the dangerous precedent it would set.These are separate issues. Yes, of course, but it has limited relevance to a discussion of the merits of capital punishment.We agree that the prison system as it currently exists is broken. The problem is that capital punishment has not fixed it. Unless you are arguing that executions will help fix the prison system (or stop cops shooting people) then these issues are not a valid part of any argument for capital punishment. They are arguments for fixing the prisons or changing the way police use guns. None of it makes a case for killing helpless prisoners. That's just semantics. Meeting a social necessity is the same as providing a social benefit.Execution is not a social necessity. This is quite clear given the fact that my country has yet to fall into the sea. Clearly we've found a way to make do without this particular barbaric punishment.Capital punishment provides no social benefit beyond satisfying the public desire for revenge. It meets no social necessity whatsoever. This entire discussion is subjective! But if you want objectivity, there can be no more objective difference than that between a living man wrongfully imprisoned and a dead one wrongfully executed. One of them will objectively benefit far more from his exoneration than the other. That last bit is meaningless. Insofar as a convicted prisoner has a "social role", it is taking place inside a prison. Besides, how someone acts does not decide whether they are human or not, that's just hyperbole. It may decide whether they are humane or not, but it has nothing to do with their humanity. You do though. We have the option of not killing them, but you want to go ahead and kill them anyway. I get that you're not chomping at the bit out of blood lust, but the fact remains; you could choose to spare these people, but instead you choose to kill them. That is the outcome that you want. But they could still contribute beyond that. They might choose to make redress, to try and balance the scales a little. It's not up to us to deny them that choice. But similarly to what I have said before, that is an argument for more widespread and better state-funded legal representation. It isn't an argument for state homicide.My problem here is that in allowing the state to kill its citizens, we hand a potentially oppressive state the ultimate tool for eliminating dissenters. We arm oppressive regimes with the tools to commit crimes that cannot be rectified and we allow incompetent regimes to make mistakes that cannot be repaired. By comparison, if imprisonment is the maximum penalty, then innocent people can, at least in principle be released. On this at least, we are in perfect agreement.Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

A timely example of what's wrong with the death penalty.

quote:

---

Wrong man was executed in Texas, probe says

​

He was the spitting image of the killer, had the same first name and was near the scene of the crime at the fateful hour: Carlos DeLuna paid the ultimate price and was executed in place of someone else in Texas in 1989, a report out Tuesday found.

​

Even "all the relatives of both Carloses mistook them," and DeLuna was sentenced to death and executed based only on eyewitness accounts despite a range of signs he was not a guilty man, said law professor James Liebman.

​

Liebman and five of his students at Columbia School of Law spent almost five years poring over details of a case that he says is "emblematic" of legal system failure.

​

DeLuna, 27, was put to death after "a very incomplete investigation. No question that the investigation is a failure," Liebman said.

​

The report's authors found "numerous missteps, missed clues and missed opportunities that let authorities prosecute Carlos DeLuna for the crime of murder, despite evidence not only that he did not commit the crime but that another individual, Carlos Hernandez, did," the 780-page investigation found.

​

The report, entitled "Los Tocayos Carlos: Anatomy of a Wrongful Execution," traces the facts surrounding the February 1983 murder of Wanda Lopez, a single mother who was stabbed in the gas station where she worked in a quiet corner of the Texas coastal city of Corpus Christi.

​

"Everything went wrong in this case," Liebman said.

​

That night Lopez called police for help twice to protect her from an individual with a switchblade.

​

"They could have saved her, they said 'we made this arrest immediately' to overcome the embarrassment," Liebman said.

​

Forty minutes after the crime Carlos DeLuna was arrested not far from the gas station.

​

He was identified by only one eyewitness who saw a Hispanic male running from the gas station. But DeLuna had just shaved and was wearing a white dress shirt -- unlike the killer, who an eyewitness said had a mustache and was wearing a grey flannel shirt.

​

Even though witnesses accounts were contradictory -- the killer was seen fleeing towards the north, while DeLuna was caught in the east -- DeLuna was arrested.

​

"I didn't do it, but I know who did," DeLuna said at the time, saying that he saw Carlos Hernandez entering the service station.

​

DeLuna said he ran from police because he was on parole and had been drinking.

​

Hernandez, known for using a blade in his attacks, was later jailed for murdering a woman with the same knife. But in the trial, the lead prosecutor told the jury that Hernandez was nothing but a "phantom" of DeLuna's imagination.

​

DeLuna's budget attorney even said that it was probable that Carlos Hernandez never existed.

​

However in 1986 a local newspaper published a photograph of Hernandez in an article on the DeLuna case, Liebman said.

​

Following hasty trial DeLuna was executed by lethal injection in 1989.

​

Up to the day he died in prison of cirrhosis of the liver, Hernandez repeatedly admitted to murdering Wanda Lopez, Liebman said.

​

"Unfortunately, the flaws in the system that wrongfully convicted and executed DeLuna -- faulty eyewitness testimony, shoddy legal representation and prosecutorial misconduct -- continue to send innocent men to their death today," read a statement that accompanies the report.

​

Source

​

Via freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/16/his-name-was-carlos-what-more-do-you-need/

---

I find this bit especially interesting;

quote:

---

Hernandez, known for using a blade in his attacks, was later jailed for murdering a woman with the same knife.

---

So much for the death penalty protecting us.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

What is it you think your feelings justify? Thankfully not. That would be ridiculous wouldn't it? I am referring to the act of resorting to "It's my opinion, it's my opinion. I can hold whatever opinion I like" when reasoned argument fails and the position being taken has been shown to be inconsistent. Then you should be able to tell me what objective criteria are being applied in a consistent manner in order to evaluate the extent of a crime and then justify the death penalty for it.This is what I keep asking you for. But all I am getting in response is effectively "Coz Oni thinks so". Fortunately "Coz Oni thinks so" isn't an objective or consistently applicable criteria of the sort the law needs to be based upon. I don't think it is me making the conflation. I merely asked what criteria you were applying. If you have conflated the state's criteria and your own that isn't my fault. Anyway - Now we know what criteria you are applying. You are applying the "Coz Oni thinks so" criteria. I don't think he should have been assassinated. No. I don't think he should have been executed. No. Tried him for genocide and multiple war crimes. I am being honest. I don't think killing another person except in the defence of self or others can be morally justified. Obviously that depends what replaces it.

Today's unsafe murder conviction: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18102336Still, if we'd hanged him, no-one would know that he probably didn't do it, eh?