On Feb 25, 4:59*pm, "Mizter T" wrote:

Not quite sure how this thread has turned to discussion of capital
punishment though.

"If there was proper justice he'd be dead already." - Boltar

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:59:22 -0000
"Mizter T" wrote:
On Feb 25, 3:43 pm, George wrote:

On 25 Feb, 14:24, wrote:
[snip]
And state execution being barbaric is merely your opinion, not a fact.
If you would not wish someone like Huntley to be executed simply for
moral
reasons then your mind is almost as warped and debased as his is.

IMO of course.

The last sentence of that last para being a rather pathetic way of trying to
advance an argument.

I wasn't trying to advance the argument, it was simply an opinion. I find the
whole "state execution is murder and makes us no better than the criminals"
argument a load of specious BS thought up by libtards deliberately to make
people feel guilty about wanting suitable punishment for offenders so they
can advance their brainless hippy , sorry - enlightened approach to
incarceration.

B2003

In message , d
writes
I wasn't trying to advance the argument, it was simply an opinion. I find the
whole "state execution is murder and makes us no better than the criminals"
argument a load of specious BS thought up by libtards deliberately to make
people feel guilty about wanting suitable punishment for offenders so they
can advance their brainless hippy , sorry - enlightened approach to
incarceration.
So, on appeal after you've been hanged, you're found to be not guilty,
would you be happy about that?
--
Clive

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:23:23 +0000
Clive wrote:
I wasn't trying to advance the argument, it was simply an opinion. I find the
whole "state execution is murder and makes us no better than the criminals"
argument a load of specious BS thought up by libtards deliberately to make
people feel guilty about wanting suitable punishment for offenders so they
can advance their brainless hippy , sorry - enlightened approach to
incarceration.
So, on appeal after you've been hanged, you're found to be not guilty,
would you be happy about that?

Why do you think people sit on death row for so long? In case any evidence
comes to light that clears them. But IMO it should be reserved for convictions
where there is no doubt at all, not just beyond reasonable doubt.

B2003

wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:23:23 +0000
Clive wrote:
I wasn't trying to advance the argument, it was simply an opinion.
I find the whole "state execution is murder and makes us no better
than the criminals" argument a load of specious BS thought up by
libtards deliberately to make people feel guilty about wanting
suitable punishment for offenders so they can advance their
brainless hippy , sorry - enlightened approach to incarceration.
So, on appeal after you've been hanged, you're found to be not
guilty, would you be happy about that?

Why do you think people sit on death row for so long? In case any
evidence comes to light that clears them. But IMO it should be
reserved for convictions where there is no doubt at all, not just
beyond reasonable doubt.

That's one way to ensure that no-one ever, ever confesses to killing
someone. Every case would have to be a hard fought battle, and there
would still probably be some scintilla of doubt.

In message , d
writes
Why do you think people sit on death row for so long? In case any evidence
comes to light that clears them. But IMO it should be reserved for convictions
where there is no doubt at all, not just beyond reasonable doubt.
Where death is the end result there is always reasonable doubt. There
are cases where a weak person will break down under questioning and
admit to guilt wrongfully. There are cases where only in the light of
recent DNA evidence did the right person come to light and the wrong
person released from goal.
Capital punishment is State Murder, it's no more than "An eye for an
eye". Proof is never absolute.
--
Clive

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:44:56 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
Why do you think people sit on death row for so long? In case any
evidence comes to light that clears them. But IMO it should be
reserved for convictions where there is no doubt at all, not just
beyond reasonable doubt.

That's one way to ensure that no-one ever, ever confesses to killing
someone. Every case would have to be a hard fought battle, and there
would still probably be some scintilla of doubt.

Who cares? How many murderers and rapists are convicted only because they
pleaded guilty? Did Huntley plead guilty? Did Fred West? Harold Shipman?

B2003

d gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

But IMO it should be reserved for convictions where there is no doubt
at all, not just beyond reasonable doubt.

Care to explain the difference?

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:50:21 +0000
Clive wrote:
Where death is the end result there is always reasonable doubt. There
are cases where a weak person will break down under questioning and
admit to guilt wrongfully. There are cases where only in the light of

Short of torturing someone no one is going to admit to murder.

Capital punishment is State Murder,

Give it a rest with all the right-on hyperbole you wet lettuce.

it's no more than "An eye for an eye".

And? Whats wrong with that? It certainly prevents reoffending and it
provides closure for the victims relatives.

Proof is never absolute.

Total BS.

B2003

In message , d
writes
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:50:21 +0000
Clive wrote:
Where death is the end result there is always reasonable doubt. There
are cases where a weak person will break down under questioning and
admit to guilt wrongfully. There are cases where only in the light of
Short of torturing someone no one is going to admit to murder.
Capital punishment is State Murder,
Give it a rest with all the right-on hyperbole you wet lettuce.
it's no more than "An eye for an eye".
And? Whats wrong with that? It certainly prevents reoffending and it
provides closure for the victims relatives.
Proof is never absolute.
Total BS.
Being able to discuss, isn't one of your strong points. Note, not a
question.
--
Clive